Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

RIVER MEDWAY (FLOOD RELIEF) BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time upon Thursday next.

NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE AND BIRMINGHAM MUNICIPAL BANK BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time and committed.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading Read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Literacy (Bullock Report)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a further statement about the implementation of the report of the Bullock Committee on Literacy.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): I hope that, despite current financial constraints, all those with responsibilities in education will continue to keep in mind the Bullock Committee's

recommendations, which covered all aspects of teaching the use of English in schools. The committee's report is too important to be set aside, although its full effects may not be felt for some time.

Mr. Goodhart: Does the Minister recall that the Bullock Committee expressed grave concern about the shortage of school books in many areas? Does she recognise that since then the increase in capitation allowance has not kept up with the rapidly increasing costs of the publishing industry? What is she going to do about it?

Miss Jackson: I am aware that capitation allowances, like all other forms of expenditure, have been affected by inflation. This is something of which the Bullock Committee made a feature, but these are primarily matters for local authority associations, as well as my Department. I have received no representations from them about the level of the allowances.

Teaching Methods

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will initiate an inquiry into the advantages and disadvantages of traditional teaching methods as compared with a less orthodox approach.

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent research has been carried out on the results achieved by different teaching methods; and what conclusions he has drawn.

Miss Margaret Jackson: Research workers at the University of Lancaster recently published a report on teaching styles and pupil progress. As I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 3rd May, the Department and Inspectorate are studying the Lancaster University report but are not yet in a position to decide whether further research is needed.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister accept that this report tended to mix up the two issues of teaching methods and the unrelated question of comprehensive education? Many of those who are totally


committed to comprehensive education are seriously worried about whether one or two of the newer methods used are capable of producing the necessary numeracy required as an essential basis for higher scientific and technical work.

Miss Jackson: My hon. Friend is raising two different issues. First, it is true that people have sought to draw from the report lessons that are not contained in it, about the benefits of comprehensive education and the relative effects of formal and informal teaching. Dr. Bennett said that such lessons should not be drawn from the report. But standards of literacy and numeracy are separate issues, and a matter about which all of us are concerned. This is why the Assessment of Performance Unit was set up in the Department to monitor these kinds of methods.

Mr. Newton: Does the Minister agree that at the very least this report confirms the anxieties felt by a lot of parents? In these circumstances it is time that the Ministry showed signs of taking the problem more seriously than it has done to date.

Miss Jackson: I do not think that the report confirms the anxieties of parents. The very exaggerated and often quite inaccurate comments made about the report by hon. Members opposite and people outside this House may have caused unjustified anxiety among parents. Anyone who reads the report and considers what it says, as opposed to what is said about it, will realise that it is very hard to give a simple judgment of these things. It is difficult to decide how far a judgment made in the Bennett Report can be applied over the whole country. If the hon. Member is seeking to make a point on the value of informal and formal teaching methods, I remind him that a teacher who used basically informal methods got the best results in the survey.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Does the Minister agree that change for change's sake is not necessarily a good thing? Will both she and her Department take a little more interest in this question, and make sure that new teaching methods which are not fully tested or tried are not inflicted widespread on all children throughout the country?

Miss Jackson: I accept that we should not have change for change's sake, or rush about installing new teaching methods. My hon. Friend's question seems to be a classic statement of the argument that we should not seek to rush about trying to reinstitute more formal methods of teaching in schools, and instituting change for change's sake. That is a very good reason for looking carefully at the result of this study, as with everything else contained in the report. We by no means dismiss the report, or take it lightly. We wish to consider seriously the real lessons to be learned from the report, and not to regard it as some kind of educational propaganda.

Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister assure us that when new theories are being put into practice there will be proper pilot schemes and a proper evaluation of those schemes before the theories are applied generally? My experience as a teacher of modern languages is that we have gone from one thing to another in that subject without properly evaluating anything, and we have lost a great deal in the process.

Miss Jackson: I take it that the hon. Member is saying that we should not rush headlong into formulating new theories of excessively formalised education on the basis of the Bennett Report. I agree with him.

Mr. George Cunningham: On the subject of teaching methods, does my hon. Friend agree that it will be useful to us all finally to get hold of the report of the ILEA inquiry into the Sir William Tyndale School? Does she realise that it is now eight or nine months since the inquiry began, and at least three months since it finished? Will the Department, realising that it has no locus standi in the matter, simply use its influence to chivvy the ILEA into getting the report out very quickly?

Miss Jackson: This report is a matter not for us but for the ILEA, but we are concerned that it should be available as soon as is reasonably possible. My hon. Friend should not forget that it was a very long and complex inquiry. I cannot judge what the report says until I have seen it.

Sir G. Sinclair: Will the Minister take the report as a serious warning of some


of the things that are going wrong, and that can be improved? Will she consider taking early steps to see that structured teaching is more widespread in all schools?

Miss Jackson: It is a little hard to see what lessons we can learn from a report that I understand is not completely written yet, let alone published. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I must tell him that Her Majesty's Inspectorate has always, consistently throughout the years, advocated a structured framework of teaching in schools. There is nothing new, revolutionary or unacceptable about that.

Comprehensive Reorganisation

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is prepared to meet representatives of those local education authorities which have not submitted plans for comprehensive reorganisation.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I would be happy to meet any authorities who wish to consider their position on secondary reorganisation.

Mr. Forman: When he has the chance to meet representatives of the London borough of Sutton will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that he is well acquainted with the strong arguments which were contained in the petition to which the London borough of Sutton contributed 28,000 signatures and which favoured a greater degree of parental choice and the preservation of good schools to ensure that they are not sacrificed on the altar of Socialist dogma?

Mr. Mulley: I seem to have heard a lot about that petition, but not in the terms expressed by the hon. Member. I believe that a petition to this House must end in a particular way if it is to be in order. I met representatives of the Sutton authority last year and I asked them to give careful consideration to the points I made to them. They may have done that, but as far as I know they have not changed their position, and no doubt we shall have to look at the matter again when Parliament passes the Bill which is on the Order Paper for discussion later today.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the Department doing any work on monitoring mixed ability teaching in comprehensive schools, or must we wait 15 years for another Bennett Report on that?

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Member must have come in late, thinking that we were on an earlier Question. Reorganisation by local authorities does not arise out of the point that he made. We may have to take more central control over these matters, but when I take even the modest step of suggesting to local authorities that they should conform to a national pattern, which is what the Education Bill seeks to do, I am accused of attacking local democracy.

Examinations (Manchester)

Dr. Boyson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will pay an official visit to Manchester to discuss its external examinations with the local authority.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Dr. Boyson: Is the Minister aware that published statistics of A-level examination results in Manchester indicated a fall of 20 per cent. between 1973 and 1974 in the results of 26 comprehensive schools there, and a falling off in the results of these comprehensive schools which make up two-thirds of the city's schools, compared with the one-third which are still voluntarily bipartite? If that is so, should there not be an inquiry into this fall in standards?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has a genius for misreading any research results for his own purposes. He knows that the Manchester report itself entered the most serious reservations about using the results to compare performances of comprehensive schools with other schools. He knows, too, that all surveys that are based upon a classification of the school at the moment when the examination results are obtained are subject to the criticism that many of the pupils in comprehensive schools have, in the course of their secondary education, been educated in more than one type of school.

Mr. Hatton: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the survey results were first published in The Times Educational Supplement they appeared under the heading
Manchester shaken by survey of comprehensiveness
but that within a month the TES had considerably modified its point of view and said that results of this kind were notoriously difficult to assess, and that there were too many alternative explanations for the differences in the different sets of schools? Even as late as April of this year, in the reorganisation of Catholic comprehensive schools before the municipal elections, the same propaganda was put out, but it resulted in the Conservatives losing the seat and Manchester remaining under Labour control.

Mr. Fowler: I recall all that with crystal clarity, and I can only express the hope that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) will show the same modesty and willingness to admit former error as The Times Educational Supplement did.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister say what kind of explanation would be acceptable from Manchester, if the information that has been published is supposed to be unreliable? Will the Department put inspectors in to produce a report that we can all understand and agree about?

Mr. Fowler: I can give no guarantee that our research projects will be based in Manchester, high as my respect is for that city. We are funding a research project through the University of Hull, which I hope will be better controlled and more reliable than the Manchester survey, which was never designed to be used for the purposes for which Conservatives use it.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that successes in external examinations since comprehensive education was introduced all over the country are massively greater than before? Everyone knows that except the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). Does my hon. Friend accept that if the 11-plus examination was still as widely used as it was formerly, vast numbers of children who have taken first-class honours degrees, some of whom actually failed

the 11-plus, would have been unable to take them? It ill becomes those who condemn comprehensive education not to look a little further and see the massive success that it really is.

Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend. He and I, however, as educationists, must share the blame for one failure, namely, the failure to enlighten the hon. Member for Brent, North, however hard we try.

Teachers (Employment)

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many qualified teachers are unemployed.

Miss Margaret Jackson: 3,533 unemployed school teachers were recorded at unemployment offices in England and Wales in March.

Mr. Luce: Will the Government now get their priorities right? In view of the monstrous waste of teacher talent and the urgent need to reduce the size of classes, why on earth do the Government not reduce the £328 million subsidy on school meals by the small amount required to employ all those teachers?

Miss Jackson: One of the difficulties in deciding on priorities is the lack of advice that we have from the Opposition on all these matters. The Opposition simply say that all expenditure should be cut, but they have no real alternative priorities. The question of how many teachers are employed is not solely the responsibility of my Department. The Government have set the rate support grant at a level to give authorities enough money to maintain staffing standards, but the responsibility for how that money is spent rests with the education authorities. Since the Opposition defend the rights of local authorities, it is hard that they should criticise us for not exercising more control.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend agree that investment in education is as important as investment in industry? Is it not disgraceful that massive numbers of teachers are liable to be unemployed in the coming months? Will she persuade her colleagues that other spending, particularly on defence, would be better devoted to education?

Miss Jackson: I agree that investment in education is as important as investment in industry, but difficult decisions have to be made. We cannot say that there are 25 areas on which it is tremendously important to spend money and that we will spend that money on all those areas; there is not enough money, and priorities must be decided. I regret that situation as much as my hon. Friend, but since the money is not available words will not produce it.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister give an estimate of the average unemployment benefit paid to the 3,533 teachers who are unemployed and say how it would compare with using those teachers to teach smaller classes?

Miss Jackson: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not have much experience of unemployment, or he would know that unemployment benefit, in the first period, is wage-related. The figures that he asks for would depend on the number of new teachers and the length of experience of others. I cannot, therefore, give him the figures, but if he wants some kind of average figure I shall attempt to obtain it. As to a calculation of the balance of cost, it is always possible to make such calculations, but they rarely fall on the side of the cut. Restraint on public expenditure nevertheless has to fall somewhere, and some of it, to my regret, has to fall here.

Mr. Ward: What steps are proposed to enable the quick retraining of some unemployed teachers to fill the shortage that exists in some subjects, which will not be filled at all without changes?

Miss Jackson: My hon. Friend is right. My Department is considering what steps can be taken to retrain teachers in subjects in which there is a shortage.

Dr. Hampson: When the Minister says that teachers cannot be exempt from harsh economic realities, what does that mean to teachers who are due to come out of the colleges in future years? Does she agree that the demoralistion of colleges is being made worse by uncertainty about whether the target is still 60,000 or is down to 45,000? Is it not wrong that this cat-and-mouse game should continue?

Miss Jackson: If one had a crystal ball one would make precise predictions, but I am not able to say what the level of unemployment is likely to be in the future. At present, it is less than 1 per cent. of the teaching force, which is lower than the general unemployment rate. We do not make such forecasts, because factors change. Wastage among teachers has been substantial, and this is the most difficult time to make any prediction for the coming year. But I hope to have a clearer picture in the coming months.

Mr. Wigley: Is it not monstrous that student teachers who were positively encouraged to go into colleges should find the outlook so bleak? Will the Minister consider introducing conversion courses in the third year of students' training, so that they can follow other necessary careers, such as speech therapy?

Miss Jackson: To retrain in the final year of a course is a new idea. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that suggestion. We are doing everything that we can, given the distribution of powers between central and local government, to encourage education authorities to employ teachers fresh from training college. We are anxious about the matter, but we are doing as much as we can.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend not agree that investment in people by way of smaller classes, which would take up unemployed teachers, is an urgent and better priority for the Labour movement than any investment in death-dealing nuclear weapons that the Opposition support? Does she agree that local authorities, particularly those that are Conservative-controlled, should get their expenditure priorities right? Will she guide them to cut out such things as public relations officers and 100 per cent. grants to direct grant schools and, as in Bradford, the junketing, dinners and lunches splashed around by Tory authorities?

Miss Jackson: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the essence of the Opposition charge against the Government that they have succeeded in doing two things—raising teacher unemployment to record levels whilst at the


same time creating a record shortage in specialist subjects such as mathematics, science and the crafts? Does not that justify the charge in today's issue of The Guardian that the Secretary of State is guilty of incompetent complacency?

Miss Jackson: I am more than a little astonished that the hon. Gentleman should dare to make that point, since a number of newspapers have recently said that it was during the existence of the previous Administration that the places that now produce unemployed teachers were planned. The previous Administration have also been open to the charge that it was their failure to take account of a planning target and to make this public that contributed to, if not created, the present situation.

Tameside

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will pay a visit to Tameside.

Mr. Mulley: I have at present no plans to do so, but I am meeting representatives of the authority in London tomorrow to discuss their plans for the transfer of children to secondary schools in September.

Mr. Arnold: Is the Minister aware that the Conservative council took control in Tameside on the basis of a manifesto that pledged not to go ahead with the plans for comprehensive education drawn up by the previous council? Does it not have a clear duty to fulfil that pledge?

Mr. Mulley: One of the difficulties is that the council, as a council, has taken no decision in these matters at all. It is meeting to discuss the subject for the first time this afternoon. In the light of that meeting, the members of the council have agreed to explain their policy to me. I do not wish to make any public judgments of what the council intends to do until I have had a chance to hear what the decisions are and I have discussed these with the council's representatives tomorrow.

Mr. Noble: When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of Tameside will he bear in mind that almost 90 per cent. of children go to a first-choice school and 96 per cent. to a first- or second-choice school? Is he aware that the teaching

profession in Tameside and throughout the country unanimously support the need to retain a comprehensive system? Will the Secretary of State deal with the educational wreckers in Tameside in a form that is appropriate to meet the needs of the parents there?

Mr. Mulley: It would be wrong for me to prejudge what the council's decisions today will be. I would not expect even a Conservative-controlled council totally to rule out the possibility that the proposed resolutions might be subject to amendment, and that reasoned argument might produce changes. Therefore, I am not forming a view until I know what the council, as distinct from various members of it, proposes to do.
I am concerned about the time factor. It is a matter of trying to get clear and settled what the policy for the children and the parents will be in September. For that reason, I asked the council as early as 11th May to let me know the position. I later asked it to let me know last Friday what it intended, but it asked for extra time and I thought it reasonable to allow sufficient for its council meeting to discuss the matter before coming to meet me tomorrow.

Mr. Montgomery: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when the Prime Minister assumed office he said on television that his Government would preserve our existing freedoms? In the light of that, why are they adopting this attitude to the Tameside authority? Why are they going against the clearly expressed wishes of so many parents who do not want comprehensive education but want some choice in the education of their children?

Mr. Mulley: I am not prepared to do what the hon. Gentleman is asking me to do, which is to prejudge the decisions of a meeting that has not yet taken place. In case the House is still sitting tomorrow, I have made contingency arrangements for the meeting to be held here, and I hope that the House will excuse me if I am absent from the consideration of the Education Bill until I have met the councillors. Until then I am not forming a view. I shall be interested to see whether the proposals that the councillors bring forward are in line with those that they submitted to the electorate in May.

Lancaster University

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will pay an official visit to Lancaster University.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to visit the university.

Mr. Lane: Hearkening to the earlier words of his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), will the Minister of State take very seriously the research work by Lancaster University, pointing to the value of more formal rather than less formal methods of teaching? Does he accept that the Government should have no higher priority in education than the raising of academic standards in the schools?

Mr. Fowler: I happily accept the hon. Gentleman's last point, just as I happily accept many of the points that he has made over the years, as a distinguished educationist himself. I respect the serious research which led to the Lancaster findings, but it would be rash to draw sweeping conclusions from one survey in a single region, where only 17 per cent. of the sample of teachers used what were described as informal methods and where there are other clear weaknesses in the survey material.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: If the Minister decides to change his mind and come to Lancaster University, will he allow me the pleasure of showing him round some of the schools that are the subject of the outstanding report to which there has been reference—schools that have been castigated by the trendy Lefties in my area as being 20 years behind the times but which provide outstandingly good education and produce children who can actually read and write when they go on to the next stage of education? Does he accept that the informal teacher described earlier as turning out excellent results had a particularly high incentive, in that her own child was in the form she taught and she was trying to cram her for a scholarship to a public school?

Mr. Fowler: As a former member of the staff of Lancaster University, I must turn down—though I express my gratitude to her—the hon. Lady's offer to act

as my guide. If the trendy Lefties in the university regard the schools as 20 years out of date, I can only speculate upon their view of the hon. Lady.

Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of the justified emphasis that my hon. Friend has just put on the particularity of the Lancaster University investigation, does not that underline the fact that his Department, instead of reacting to and perhaps rejecting particular research, should be doing its own much more broad-based research throughout the country, which it is uniquely able to do?

Mr. Fowler: We have a substantial research programme, both of our own and through other organisations. I referred earlier to one of our research projects, which is being undertaken through the medium of the University of Hull. We seek all the time to monitor educational standards in schools and to find out what teaching methods produce the best results.

Education Welfare Officers (Training)

Mr. Hooky: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are being taken to improve the training of education welfare officers as recommended in the 11th Report of the Expenditure Committee, 30th July 1975, paragraph 136.

Miss Margaret Jackson: The Government's reply to the Expenditure Committee's Report has now been published. It describes action being taken by the bodies responsible—local authorities, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work and the Local Government Training Board—to improve basic and in-service training for the education welfare service.

Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that truancy can be an important factor in eventual delinquency? Will she put pressure on the bodies concerned to look particularly at the valuable work that the educational welfare workers can do in this area?

Miss Jackson: I fully accept my hon. Friend's comments. The Department sees great value in the work of the education welfare service. My right hon. Friend has taken steps to convene a


meeting to discuss these very complex problems later this month.

Bromley (School Place Allocations)

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what correspondence he has had with the Bromley branch of the National Union of Teachers on the subject of the places taken up by the London borough of Bromley at independent and direct grant schools.

Miss Margaret Jackson: Last autumn my right hon. Friend received a complaint from the Bromley Teachers' Association about the Bromley Education Authority's policy.

Mr. Hunt: Is the hon. Lady aware that by telling the Bromley teachers that the taking up of these places was a matter for the district auditor the Secretary of State was directly inciting them to challenge the policy of the Bromley council? Is she aware that many suspect that he was acting in collusion with the Bromley branch of the National Union of Teachers to force the abandonment of a policy which may have offended against the Socialist concept of educational egalitarianism but which at least provided an opportunity for many children in the borough to receive an education which otherwise their parents would have been unable to afford?

Miss Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in two ways. He is wrong, first, in suggesting that my right hon. Friend was seeking to incite the NUT to disagree with its local education authority. He was merely making a factual point about the existence of, and possible interest of, the district auditor. I am even more fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's assumption that fear of the Bromley branch of the NUT rather than fear of the district auditor forced the education authority to change its policy, but I suspect that it is not correct.

Mr. Bryan Davies: What does my hon. Friend think of Conservative-controlled councils such as my own, in Enfield, which, despite their responsibility for the education of all children within the borough, consider that their schools are not good enough for a certain range of gifted children and that those children

should be sent to independent schools, at the ratepayers' expense?

Miss Jackson: It seems to me, as it seems to my hon. Friend, that such authorities should be devoting resources to the improvement of their own schools rather than saying that they can stay as they are for most children but that a few can have a different kind of education.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the hon. Lady confirm that it is one of the basic principles of the whole series of Education Acts that local education authorities should have the right, in order to widen parental choice and for other reasons, to take up places at independent schools? Will she now say why her right hon. Friend failed to confirm that fact to the members of the Bromley Borough Council when they approached the Department for guidance?

Miss Jackson: I do not think that my right hon. Friend did any such thing. The hon. Gentleman and I have had this argument before. My right hon. Friend pointed out to the council what is a simple statement of fact, that it had a right to carry out expenditure of this kind, and it would not be for him to intervene, but that the policy might be a matter for the district auditor if the district auditor thought that the council was acting incorrectly. It is true that under the existing Education Acts local councils have the power to take such steps, but they also have a duty, which should be overriding, to provide a good standard of education for all the children in their area, in their schools.

Blindness (Research)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report particulars of the research projects into the causes of blindness supported directly or through the Medical Research Council in each of the last three years; what was the amount of money allocated; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mulley: I am publishing the information in the Official Report. In addition, research into causes of blindness was undertaken at the Medical Research Council's Trachoma Unit until December 1973 at a cost of £20,600 in 1973–74 and biochemical studies of retinitis pigmentosa were undertaken at the council's Brain Metabolism Unit until 1975. Other


council units have recently begun a study of some aspects of the genetics of retinitis pigmentosa. This forms part of a wider programme and the council cannot isolate the cost of the study.
The council also supports considerable basic research on the eye and vision which may prove relevant to the problems of blindness.

Mr. Pavitt: Why is it that when we have 160,000 registered blind people, with retinitis pigmentosa being the cause in about 40,000 cases, so little emphasis is given to this aspect of research? Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with this right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on the amount that can be given for research into blind-

RECENT MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL GRANTS FOR RESEARCH PROJECTS ON CAUSES OF BLINDNESS


Tenure
Subject and Institution
Annual Value £


1970–73
…
Single unit discharge properties of the optic nerve with particular relation to amblyopia (St. Thomas's Hospital Medical School)
9,512


1970–73
…
Ocular vascular occlusive diseases (University of Edinburgh)
11,516


1970–73
…
Optical properties of the human lens (Institute of Ophthalmology)
3,822


1971–74
…
Investigations into the problems related to aqueous outflow in normal and glaucomatous eyes (Institute of Ophthalmology)
16,183*


1971–74
…
Macular disorders (Institute of Ophthalmology)
7,214*


1971–73
…
Visual callosal connections and their functions (University of Oxford)
4,641*


1971–75
…
The elastic properties of human lens fibres (Institute of Ophthalmology)
804


1971–74
…
An experimental and clinical study of choroidal blood flow and the effects of choroidal ischaemia on the eye (University of Glasgow)
6,568*


1972–73
…
Ultrastructural studies of the eye in health and disease (Institute of Ophthalmology)
25,000


1972–75
…
Regulation of stabilities of messenger RNAs for lens proteins (University of Edinburgh)
7,956


1972–73
…
Investigation into the toxic amblyopias, choroidal ischaemia, diabetic retinopathy and retinal detachment (University of Glasgow)
2,739


1972–77
…
Neuronal plasticity in the mammalian central nervous system (University of Cambridge)
24,696*


1972–75
…
Neurotransmitters in the retina (Institute of Ophthalmology)
3,473*


1972–73
…
An analysis of recovery mechanisms after acute experimental demyelination of the optic nerve (Institute of Neurology)
7,949


1973–76
…
Aspects of the management of chronic open angle glaucoma by topically applied therapy (University of Bath)
2,904*


1973
…
Assessment of value of suramin therapy for the long-term control of onchocerciasis in a heavily infected community
1,624


1973–76
…
Rôle of immune mechanisms in resistance to and pathogenesis of chlamydial infection in the guinea pig eye (Institute of Ophthalmology)
3,545


1973–74
…
Physiological and pathological processes in the eye (Institute of Ophthalmology)
7,261*


1973–76
…
Influence of visual experience on spatial and temporal resolution in visual system and its relation to amblyopia (St. Thomas's Hospital Medical School)
6,273*


1974–77
…
The rôle of cell mediated immune mechanisms in human chlamydial disease (Institute of Ophthalmology)
7,972


1974–77
…
Epidemiology and aetiology of non-specific genital infection in women (University College Hospital Medical School, London)
11,370


1974–77
…
Traumatic retinal oedema: clincal and experimental study into the factors responsible for its causation (University of Bristol)
4,267*


1974–76
…
Reflectromatric study of the response of the vascular circulation of the eye to raised intraocular pressure (Institute of Ophthalmology)
3,730


1974–77
…
Mediators and inhibitors of the ocular response to inflammation and trauma (Institute of Ophthalmology)
3,102


1974–76
…
Study of lens changes in diabetes (Institute of Ophthalmology)
2,112*

ness under the Dainton Report, which allowed funds to be earmarked for specific purposes under a contractor-customer relationship? Does he agree that a much higher priority should be given to blindness, which seems to have sunk to the bottom of the league table in relation to research and treatment?

Mr. Mulley: As my hon. Friend has rightly said, the direction of this research is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services than for me. The essence of the Medical Research Council and other councils is that they are independent, but I shall have discussions with my right hon. Friend, as my hon. Friend has suggested.

The information is as follows:

Tenure
Subject and Institution
Annual Value £


1974–77
…
Biochemical studies on the lens and cornea of the eye, particularly cataract, and corneal scarring, in man (Nuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, University of Oxford)
2,091


1974–75
…
X-ray diffraction and micro-electrode study of corneal charge distribution, swelling and transparency (Oxford Research Unit, Open University)
9,263


1975
…
Clinical measurements of retinal haemodynamics using laser and signal processing techniques (Institute of Ophthalmology)
18,692


1975–78
…
Humoral immunity to chlamydial infections of the uro-genital tract (University of Birmingham)
6,675


1975–78
…
Factors influencing the ability of the retina and other ocular tissues to withstand ischaemia (Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, University of Glasgow)
10,719


1975–78
…
The laboratory and clinical investigation of human oculo-genital infections with chlamydia (University of Liverpool)
3,119


1975–76
…
Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (Birmingham and Midland Eye Hospital)
6,352


Awarded 1975 (not yet taken up).
Biochemical studies on cornea and lens of the eye, particularly cataract and corneal scarring in man (Nuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, University of Oxford)
7,798


* Partly funded by the Department of Health and Social Security. All other costs met from the Department of Education and Science grant-in-aid to the Medical Research Council.

Primary Schools (Derbyshire)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to replace nineteenth century primary schools in Derbyshire and the Bolsover constituency.

Miss Margaret Jackson: It is for the local education authority to decide what priority it is able to give to replacing old primary schools within the lump sum resources for school building allocated to it by my right hon. Friend. Two such schools are currently being replaced in the Bolsover constituency.

Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that these difficulties are increased when education is to be cut by £680 million over the next few years? Is she further aware that the county council has run into financial difficulties over replacements, and will she take into account the fact that the Derbyshire Education Committee has allocated about £2 million out of its own capital receipts in order to speed up plans for comprehensive education in accordance with Government policy? Why is it not Government policy to help those who help themselves?

Miss Jackson: The existence of many old primary schools, particularly in Derbyshire, is a matter of considerable concern to us. I was not aware that the authority was running into financial difficulties. I shall inquire into the matter.

Mr. Rost: Is the hon. Lady aware that there is one primary school in Derby-

shire which does not need replacing? Does she know that the village school at Dale Abbey is threatened with closure by the Labour-controlled Derbyshire Education Authority, despite the overwhelming wishes of the local population?

Miss Jackson: This is a matter in which the hon. Gentleman has expressed interest before. When the proposal comes before the Department, his interests and those of other people in the area will be taken into account.

Teachers (Retirement)

Mrs. Chalker: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consider a voluntary early retirement scheme for teachers.

Mr. Mulley: Proposals tabled by the teachers' association for voluntary retirement on pension at 55 were recently considered in the Teachers Superannuation Working Party, but discussion on them has been deferred.

Mrs. Chalker: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect those discussions to be completed? Does he agree that if older teachers wish to retire early, some unemployed teachers could, if the right hon. Gentleman got a move on, be taking up these posts in September?

Mr. Mulley: In the first instance the negotiations are between the employers—the local authorities—and teachers' unions. We seek to keep the arrangements in line with those for other local


government employees. The question is whether it should be a voluntary retirement scheme or a matter of compensation for premature retirement, which is the normal practice for local government staff. I want to see whether there is a possibility of an early retirement scheme, but I would not think this is the only way of dealing with the difficulties that we have at present.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Is not one of the additional reasons for seeking to press on with the scheme the fact that many of the teachers now coming out of colleges of education are of a particularly good standard, which makes it doubly regrettable that they cannot immediately be employed? Is there not much advantage in a scheme to improve the quality of the teaching force in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker)?

Mr. Mulley: The question is whether the local authorities or the teachers should be able to take advantage of such provisions. It is right that the negotiations now being undertaken should be allowed to continue. On the question of employing teachers from training colleges. I agree that it is highly desirable that local authorities should fill all possible vacancies with young teachers, and not, as so often in the past, by taking people who have left teaching and gone to jobs in other industries, but who come back because the conditions are so much better than they were three or four years ago.

CBI AND TUC

Mr. Forman: asked the Prime Minister when he last had discussions with the CBI and the TUC.

Mr. Brittan: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the heads of the CBI and TUC.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I refer the hon. Members and my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 27th May.

Mr. Forman: When he had his discussions with the CBI and others, did the Prime Minister take the trouble to get hold of a copy of the MORI Survey into the attitudes of working people, which showed that 86 per cent. of those polled favoured living in a free enterprise society and that the same percentage favoured wider profit sharing as an incentive to increase productivity?

The Prime Minister: I did not get hold of a copy of the survey. Responses can depend on the way questions are framed. I have not had an opportunity to examine this questionnaire, but I dare say that it is as valuable as a great many others, including those which forecast the results of General Elections.

Mr. Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent Financial Times survey of business forecasts, which showed the recovery in the economy to be in full swing? [Interruption.] Is he aware that this contained high investment intentions, although unfortunately, investment has been flagging? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member speaks even slower than I do.

Mr. Shaw: In view of the unstinting contribution of the TUC, will my right hon. Friend nudge the CBI to encourage its constituent members to improve investment?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made a most valuable point, on which the House should reflect. Investment has been sluggish so far, but there is reason to believe that it is now improving. Certainly the Department of Industry survey, which was published yesterday, suggests a sharp rise in investment in 1977. If that is true, it wil probably be the first time that British industry has taken advantage of an export-led boom before the consumer cycle has taken full effect. The fact that the Government have made available several hundred million pounds through the accelerated capital projects scheme will encourage industry to go ahead with further investment. We ask them to do so.

Mrs. Thatcher: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC and the CBI, will he tell them that the Chancellor's statement yesterday represents not a victory for the Government but a defeat for their policies? When he next addresses the CBI, will he tell it that his only policy


is to put Britain deeper into the red, to keep the red flag flying here?

The Prime Minister: I still have hopes that one day Question Time will be a serious period, without Members just thinking up clever phrases in advance and then shouting them across the Dispatch Box.
I think that the general opinion held about the credit that was advanced yesterday—I agree that that opinion is not shared by the Leader of the Opposition, but the right hon. Lady is in a somewhat isolated position in this matter—is that it was a valuable reinforcement of the international monetary situation.
A collapse of the international monetary situation would do no good to anyone in the western industrialised world. It was mainly for that reason that the central banks got together to ensure that a currency that, in their view, was undervalued should not be attacked in a way that would destroy the bastions of the monetary system. The right hon. Lady says that that represents a defeat for the Government's policies. All I can say to her, in the immortal words of one of my predecessors, is that if she believes that she will believe anything.

Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Prime Minister realise that he had to borrow from the central bankers—capitalist central bankers—because they had not got enough confidence in his Government's policies to purchase sterling?

The Prime Minister: The central bankers do not purchase sterling in this sense, although they may intervene from time to time. This is normal, standard practice, under which central banks give assistance to each other by means of swap facilities. I am sure that one day the right hon. Lady will understand these things a little better.

Mr. Bidwell: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Trades Union Congress has called for the strongest anti-racist laws to emerge from this place? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the present situation, having regard to the anxiety about immigration generally? Will he confirm that it is the Government's policy to prosecute policies to develop racial harmony in this country?

The Prime Minister: I have not discussed this matter with the TUC or CBI, but my hon. Friend and the whole House will deplore the events that took place in his constituency at the weekend. It would be wrong for me to comment in detail on the murder, or on the demonstration, as criminal charges will come before the courts, but perhaps the House will allow me to say that race relations in this country have been good over the years, thanks to the good sense and moderation of the vast majority of our people of all communities.
I think that the House will deeply regret the murder that took place at Southall but will want to pay tribute to the stand against violence taken by the leaders of the Asian and other minority communities in that area. I think that the House will also want to thank the police for the work that they did. I urge everyone not to allow passion to destroy our reputation as a tolerant, cohesive and unified society.
The Government have taken a determined stand against racial discrimination in any form, and we shall continue to do so. The Race Relations Bill, which is now before the House, has received support from all parties. When, as I hope, it goes on to the statute book, with the support of all parties, it will be an indication to the minorities in our midst that they can live here as free and equal citizens with everyone else.

Mr. Grimond: As the Prime Minister now consults the CBI and the TUC, will he think of consulting others, as well? As the Chancellor has now bought us some more time with these standby arrangements, will the right hon. Gentleman sound out the various parties in the House, of which there are six, on the question whether there is any common ground for supporting the sort of measures that will need to be taken if we are to avoid another crisis in a year or two?

The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman said "in a year or two" That is sufficient unto the day in some ways. But I would put that—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would only contain themselves, they might sometimes hear the end of a sentence without interruption. I would put that as too distant a perspective for any measures


that need to be taken. No doubt we shall be discussing the real problem in due course. I have read that, after hours of anxiety, a motion is to go on the Order Paper, although I have not yet had the advantage of reading it. I have no doubt that we shall be discussing these matters, and that will be the opportunity to take counsel together to see what is necessary.
I have stated the main problem, as I see it, on many occasions—namely, that with the upturn in investment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw), referred, there will be what, in the vernacular, I call two buckets put into the same pool of savings. This will cause problems not only to the Government but to the country as a whole if we are to avoid inflation. I go on saying that, because I think that those are the steps that need to be taken.

ISLE OF GRAIN

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Isle of Grain.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Ovenden: is the Prime Minister aware of my disappointment that he will be unable to visit the area where the first shipment of British North Sea oil was landed, thereby missing an appropriate opportunity to make a statement about the Government's oil policy? Will he take the opportunity today to tell the House whether he is satisfied with the progress being made towards achieving the Labour Party manifesto commitment of a majority public stake in all North Sea oil exploration?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry not to be able to visit the area. Somehow I do not think that my hon. Friend or I would get a pair if we were to ask for it at the moment.

Mr. Lipton: There are plenty of pairs to be had.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is too cynical about the intentions of Opposition Members.
The oil policy is working out broadly as we had hoped and intended. The stake

that the Government are taking is now being worked out in negotiation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has made a full statement on the matter. I am sure that even among the faint-hearts on the Opposition Benches it will be a cause for rejoicing that the import of our own oil from the North Sea this year is likely to save us about £1 billion on the balance of payments. That is another source of strength in which the whole nation can rejoice.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: As the benefit being gained by the British or English economy this year is of the order mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, will he indicate whether he is intent upon giving to the Scottish Assembly the oil revenues that the Assembly will need to improve the standard of living in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: The question of the revenues that the Scottish Assembly will control will no doubt be thrashed out in the course of devolution debates that we shall have. But if the United Kingdom is to remain as an integrated whole, the answer will undoubtedly be that no revenues can be hypothecated to one particular part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dalyell: If my right hon. Friend rightly concerns himself with the decisions of trade union conferences, while we are on the subject of the East Coast will he bear in mind that at Scarborough UCATT came down against devolution?

The Prime Minister: UCATT was one of the few conferences that I did not attend. Perhaps that is the reason.

Mr. Ridley: If the Prime Minister does not visit the Isle of Grain, will he have time to have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who broke his word not to vote on the day before we rose for the recess? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to keep the hon. Gentleman as a member of his Administration when it is quite clear that he is not able to discharge an honourable obligation to the House?

The Prime Minister: I note what the hon. Gentleman said, but I am afraid that there will not be a vacancy for him after all.

Hon. Members: Answer the question.

The Prime Minister: rose—

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Skinner, to raise a point of order.

Mr. Skinner: I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, would care to rule on the situation that has recently developed in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is sitting underneath the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan).

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I am no expert in such matters.

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the recent UNCTAD conference.
The fourth United Nations Conference on Trade and Development met in Nairobi, Kenya, from 5th to 31st May.
The conference adopted resolutions by consensus on a number of matters including commodity policy, developing country debt, the transfer of technology and certain institutional issues. In addition, a resolution was adopted by majority vote on transnational corporations, and a resolution on the development of international mechanisms to facilitate resource development in developing countries, including the proposal to consider the establishment of an International Resources Bank, was rejected in a vote by a narrow margin.
The major achievement was that consensus was reached on a resolution on commodities, the central issue before the conference. The resolution provides for a programme of negotiation, within a defined timetable, on products which have been identified as of particular interest to the developing countries. I welcome this decision, which I sought in my opening statement for the United Kingdom at the outset of the conference. It will give concrete shape to proposals put forward in Kingston a year ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).
The resolution also provides for preparatory meetings in relation to a common fund for buffer stock financing, to be followed by a negotiating conference, not later than March 1977, which will be open to all the members of UNCTAD. It is clearly right that this proposal should be studied further. The resolution recognises that there are differences of view on the objectives and modalities of a common fund, and, in common with a number of other developed countries, we have made it clear that our acceptance of the resolution is on the basis of that understanding.
I am glad to say that consensus was also reached on debt on the basis of a proposal which we had put forward in the course of negotiations. The resolution adopted by the conference confirms the willingness of the developed countries to consider quickly and constructively requests for help from any individual developing country finding itself in difficulties. It also provides for work to be done internationally in existing fora to establish from past and current experience what features might give flexible guidance for future operations.
We approached the conference with a full recognition of the serious problems which face the developing countries and of the contribution which the conference could make in seeking ways to alleviate those problems. Despite the differences of view which remained on certain points, I believe that the conference has made a substantial contribution towards that objective. For our part, we shall play a full and constructive rôle in the programme of international work which the conference has set in hand.
An account of all the issues dealt with by the conference will be published in a White Paper as soon as is practicable this summer. And I am placing in the Library the text of the various resolutions which were adopted by consensus or voted on, together with an explanatory statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development on the resolution on commodities.

Mr. Higgins: Is not this statement an attempt by the bland to lead the bland? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general view of his performance at


UNCTAD IV and, indeed, of the Government's attitude generally, is that it has been deplorable and has totally failed to give a lead in formulating an EEC position or in taking a generally constructive view on these issues? We understand that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was averse to taking any lead in Europe at all. Does he understand that in future we expect him to take a lead? 
What precisely is the position concerning the common fund? Are we to understand that it is a mere commitment to study the idea further and no more than that? 
In his statement, the right hon. Gentleman said that the decision on commodities
will give concrete shape to proposals put forward in Kingston a year ago
by his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson). Yet, when we look at the statement, is it not the case that it is saying no more than that there will be further talks and negotiations? 
Does not the statement make it clear that the Government did not make any specific proposal concerning debt relief but merely stated the existing position—namely, that any creditor country will look at the position if a debtor country gets into difficulty? Here again, is there not a considerable lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Government for the real problems which we face as a result of UNCTAD? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate these matters? Following the end of UNCTAD IV, the Paris conference continues and the multilateral trade negotiations are continuing. Surely it is right that the House should have a chance of expressing its view so that we can urge the Government to take a more positive and less complacent line than has been made clear both this afternoon and at the conference.

Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman undermines his criticisms by failing to give the Opposition's view on the key issue at the conference—the common fund. If the hon. Gentleman had told us that the Opposition were in favour of the common fund, the rest of his criticisms might follow. But, as he has been unable to

state the Opposition's view clearly on that point, his criticisms are meaningless. Everyone knows that the key issue at the conference was the common fund. We decided that we could not support the principle of the common fund on the basis of the present proposals. However, we indicated that we were prepared to discuss it and that, if our reservations could be dealt with, the common fund presented a possibility that we could enter into. But we have serious reservations about the common fund. Because of our reservations and because we thought it right to voice them honestly at the conference, there has been criticism of us. But that does not mean that we did not take a positive view on the issues before the conference.
On the contrary, on commodities, the proposal originally made at Kingston—that we should negotiate for an agreement on a case by case basis—is going forward under the resolution adopted by the conference within the timetable which I suggested in my opening speech at the conference.
On debt, the proposal made by the United Kingdom Government in the course of negotiations was in principle adopted by the conference. That represents an advance. There will be consideration of the development of the debt situation within the Trade and Development Board.
I think that the hon. Gentleman's criticisms show no appreciation of the positive attitude taken by the Government not only within UNCTAD but within a whole series of negotiations which have been going on alongside UNCTAD within the CIEC and within the IMF, which has adopted proposals, with our support and approval, of great assistance to the developing countries. We have played a positive rôle not only in UNCTAD but in other negotiations and developments which have been going ahead.

Mrs. Hart: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on managing at the last moment, with a slight change in the British position, to avoid the total breakdown of UNCTAD in Nairobi. Perhaps he will allow me to pay tribute to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the positive rôle that he played in the last week of UNCTAD.
How did the British delegation vote on the Kissinger proposal for an International Resources Bank, which seemed to me to be unnecessary in view of other sources of international finance for private investment or to be a method of providing protection for multinational investment in developing countries? 
Will the White Paper that my right hon. Friend is to publish state the various points of view that were put forward on the various issues at UNCTAD as well as the British position? 
Finally, I have two very brief questions. First, will my right hon. Friend give a reassurance to the House that in agreeing to the common fund proposal, and to the negotiations that will proceed up to March of next year, the British Government really will take a positive and constructive approach? 
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend see whether within the Cabinet the matter can be raised of providing for a full ministerial committee, so that the briefing instructions for conferences of this kind, which are vital to us, are prepared with full consideration by all the Ministers concerned?

Mr. Dell: I am very well aware of my right hon. Friend's intense interest in this matter. No one can say of my right hon. Friend that her views on the common fund are in any way in doubt, therefore I take her criticisms seriously. But I must say to her that among the reservations we have in respect of a common fund are reservations on the ground of development policy.
To deal with particular questions, we voted for the Kissinger proposal. We think that it is an interesting and possibly valuable proposal as a way of providing new investment for the production of commodities which may well be necessary. One of the things that are thought to have happened over recent years is a falling away of investment in commodity development, for political reasons.
My right hon. Friend asked whether various points of view in addition to that of the United Kingdom Government will be put in the White Paper. I shall certainly look at that point. Of course, a very large number of nations are present at UNCTAD. Therefore there

might be some difficulty in satisfying my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend asks us to take a really constructive view on the common fund. Of course, we shall enter constructively into the preparatory discussions on this matter to find out whether our reservations can be met. I give her a full assurance on that point.

Mr. Hooson: Will the Secretary of State not agree that the conference illustrated the very deep divisions on this subject, and that in practical terms what the conference failed to agree was much more important than what it agreed? What was the extent of the disagreement between our own country and our partners in the EEC on the basic approach to these problems?

Mr. Dell: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. There were divisions on the common fund. But it seems to me that the positive aspect of the conference was the decision—which we supported and which I sought in my opening speech—to make concrete progress on individual commodities within a timetable. That, within the commodity field, seems to me to be the practical and valuable upshot of the conference.
It is known that within the European Community there was a range of views. I think that within the European Community only one country took a clearly favourable view of the common fund, and that was the Netherlands. The other member countries had different degrees of reservation about it. Perhaps we stated ours most clearly.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was profound and widespread disappointment in the country at the Government's general approach to this conference? Is he further aware that the negative attitude on the common fund, on buffer stocks and on debt relief gave the impression that our negotiators were not taking a forward look on a matter which is of vital importance to the economic well-being of this country? 
Will he give an assurance that in the ongoing negotiations—they will go on for many years—we shall adopt a more positive approach, and not tail along meekly behind the United States and


Germany, which are notorious hardliners in these matters?

Mr. Dell: Perhaps I have said enough about the common fund. I disagree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that we took a negative view on buffer stocks. On the contrary, we said that where buffer stocks were necessary in the context of a commodity agreement—and that is by no means so in the case of all commodity agreements—we were quite clear that the financing would be available. We did not take a negative view on debt relief.
My hon. Friend says that the economic well-being of this country is tied up in this matter. I entirely accept that That is one reason why we should take a serious view of this question and go for practical steps. The whole emphasis of our approach to UNCTAD was to go for practical steps rather than, if I may say so, grandiose schemes. Such schemes can perhaps hold up the practical steps rather than forward them.
Our most positive approach in the area of commodities was the Kingston initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), but that was a specific proposal, and there was no commitment within that proposal to go along with the common fund. It was a useful proposal and it has in essence got into a very important part of the commodity resolution that was finally adopted.

Sir John Hall: Will the Minister not agree that the results achieved by the various UNCTAD conferences since they were first started have been extremely disappointing? Will he not also agree that there is a feeling that the British Government made very little constructive contribution to the last conference, and that, in common with some other countries, they were more interested in talking than in doing anything positive? Will he not agree that this is a very unfortunate impression to create?

Mr. Dell: Certainly it is an unfortunate impression if it is thought that this country made little constructive contribution, but I do not believe that to be the case, nor do I believe that the record of the UNCTAD conferences has been disappointing.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the general scheme of preferences arose out of the UNCTAD conferences. One of the positive proposals that we made at this conference is that that scheme should be improved and developed. I hope that it will be, and that in the course of the multilateral trade negotiations, on which a resolution was passed at the conference, there will be further opportunities created for imports from developing countries. Therefore, I reject the view that the attitude of the British Government was not constructive. I believe that it was constructive, but it was also practical. We were seeking specific issues on which progress could be made.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that the general consensus of criticism of Her Majesty's Government's position is that, while there were some last-minute concessions, the basic position was one of pursuing short-term economic self-interest for this country? 
Has my right hon. Friend considered the Cabinet Office paper "Future World Trends", and particularly paragraphs 13 and 14 in which it is stated that
Although it should be theoretically possible to feed the world's growing population until the turn of the century, the enormous political, social and economic problems involved make it unlikely that this will be achieved.… Unless there are resource transfers on a scale many times greater than at present, the effective check to world population will be the Malthusian trilogy of war, famine and disease."?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the interests of this country we should adopt a much more constructive approach than we have seen so far, and that this will be essential if we are to preserve a world in which our children can grow up?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend has underlined the importance, in respect of certain commodities, of commodity agreements. The Government have been going for that. We are a signatory of all the recent commodity agreements. We have made that constructive proposal.
I am afraid that it is true—I accept it, and it is obvious from the questions put to me—that the fact that we had reservations on the common fund has served to disguise a whole series of constructive steps which we took. On the other hand, in my judgment our reservations on the


common fund are well founded. It is not the case that we are not prepared to discuss them. On the contrary, we are prepared to discuss them and we hope that they can be resolved. But these are serious reservations, and no one in the House should assume that because we have reservations on that proposal as a method of dealing with a commodity problem, we do not wish to deal with a commodity problem. On the contrary, we do, in accordance with the terms of the Kingston initiative, which indicated that the practical way to make progress was through individual commodity agreements.

Mr. Tim Renton: Surely, where the Secretary of State's argument falls down is that it was not necessary for the UNCTAD conference to take place for Britain to support single-commodity agreements. We have always been signatories to single-commodity agreements, as befits us as an importing nation. This was not a step forward at UNCTAD. Why did not the Secretary of State go to Nairobi with positive initiatives of his own, particularly on the question of a European investment fund, which has been discussed with the Commission regularly in the past month?

Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman knows what has been done under the Lomé Convention. There was no such European proposal. That is the reason why I could not go to Nairobi with such a proposal. In respect of commodities, what I think was a step forward at UNCTAD is that the conference adopted this resolution together with a timetable. That is an important development.

Mr. John Mendelson: Although the Opposition may have a bad case for criticising the Government about their attitude to the common fund, that of itself does not make the Government's attitude necessarily any better. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more why the Government had these grave reservations on the common fund? Is it not equally correct that, while Holland may have been the country in the Common Market that took a very positive view, there are other traditional friends of this country, among the Scandinavian countries, for instance, that also took a very positive attitude? Why did my right hon. Friend not co-operate more closely with them? What is his atti-

tude to Commonwealth opinion about the position on the common fund? Is there not now an urgent need for a debate on these matters so that the Government's view may be properly probed?

Mr. Dell: To answer my hon. Friend fully about our reservations on the common fund would obviously take some time. I shall summarise our view. My hon. Friend says "Let us have a debate." I am perfectly happy to have a debate. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. To summarise Britain's attitude on this proposal, it is that it seems to us to be entirely unselective and the financial aspects of it are as yet obscure, although UNCTAD has made certain estimates in that field. I am aware that the Netherlands was not the only developed country to support the common fund. Norway supported it, too. However, I think that they were the only two countries that went to the conference with a clear view in support of the common fund.
I am also aware of the attitude within the Commonwealth. While in Nairobi I had the opportunity of some conversations within the Commonwealth. It should be realised that although one must accept in these discussions that the Group of 77 is united in support of the common fund, even within the Group of 77 and within the Commonwealth there are different degrees of enthusiasm for the common fund.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I should like to request hon. Members to ask only one question, so that I may call every Member who wishes to put a question on this matter.

Mr. Blaker: Is it not important that when the further discussions to which the Secretary of State refers take place there should be a much more united attitude on the part of the Common Market countries than there was in Nairobi? Will he give an assurance that he will be bending his attention to that matter in the coming months?

Mr. Dell: I should be very glad to have a united view on this issue within the European Community, but there are differences of view. UNCTAD is a conference at which EEC member countries are separately represented. Therefore, it is not unnatural that different emphases


are given even where there is a basically similar view. On the subject of the common fund, I think that most Community members take basically the same attitude. The Netherlands was clearly in favour. Denmark was somewhere in between. However, on that there was at any rate a large degree of basic unity, although again with different emphases.

Mr. James Johnson: In view of the continuing and continuous competition between Western democracies and the Eastern Communist States for, shall I say, the hearts and minds of the Third World, did it seem as fantastic to the Secretary of State as it seemed to myself to witness the Chinese attack upon the Soviet Union regarding their aid to the Third World, in which they were considered to be almost worse than we ourselves in our worst phases of the history of the nineteenth century? I happen to believe that the Chinese are doing a first-class job in Africa. Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on that matter?

Mr. Dell: I do not think that I have any useful comment on that question, except to say that I was pleased to see the Chinese delegate and the Russian delegate at the reception that I gave in Nairobi.

Mr. Crouch: Was any consideration given at the conference to consulting, in future, multinational companies about how they might contribute towards helping the developing world, instead of just criticising them, bearing in mind that of the world's 100 biggest economic units, multinational firms outnumber nations by 54 to 46?

Mr. Dell: Unfortunately, the discussion on multinational companies was very brief. It took place right at the end of the conference. It was hurried and, therefore, inconclusive, so I cannot say that there was any substantial discussion of this question.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State aware that much of the criticism that has been directed towards the British Government was simply not shared by Africans who attended the EEC-ACP Conference at Luxembourg and who had been at Nairobi? Having said that, may I ask my right hon. Friend to get hold of the public statements of M. Cheysson,

the Budget Director, and Mr. Krohn, the Director-General, in which they criticised the way in which the European countries had simply not got together before the conference, and in which they made statements to the effect that the Africans did not know whether they were talking to the Nine as the Nine or to separate countries of Western Europe? Will my right hon. Friend reflect upon those statements?

Mr. Dell: I am glad to hear what my hon. Friend has found about the attitude of certain African countries. I shall certainly get hold of those statements. I think that I have a fair idea what M. Cheysson thinks about the EEC position at the UNCTAD conference. I should be very happy to achieve a greater degree of unity on this question within the European Community.

Mr. John H. Osborn: While supporting the views expressed by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about the ACP conference in Luxembourg last week, following UNCTAD, may I ask whether there was not an element of confrontation in Nairobi? To what extent was this due to the fact that the developing countries are recognising that their raw materials and commodities will be increasingly scarce and, therefore, that any agreement should be at high prices rather than at low prices?

Mr. Dell: There is inevitably something of an air of confrontation at UNCTAD conferences, because of the structure of the conferences. However, fortunately we were able to get over that in the end in the final resolutions. As I said, we have developed a sound basis for further progress. One of the practical difficulties in making commodity agreements is precisely that which the hon. Gentleman raises, that is, the range of prices within which they should operate. It is this sort of practical difficulty to which we have to address ourselves, and we must now try to make progress on that within the timetable that has been agreed.

Mr. Spearing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reasons that he gave for the support by the Government of the Kissinger bank initiative will not be found convincing by many of his supporters on the Government side of the


House? When did the Government first hear of this proposal, and at what level was a decision taken to vote for it?

Mr. Dell: As my hon. Friend knows, Ministers take responsibility for decisions made by the British Government. I am sorry that he finds the reasons that I gave for interest in this proposal unconvincing. We have not said that we support it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have not had time to study it for long enough. What we have supported is the proposal that there should be further study. That is absolutely right, because it appears to address itself to what is an essential element in this problem, and that is producing more commodities to meet expanding demand. That will require additional investment and this may be one way of achieving that additional investment.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that although the persons and organisations in this country that have had a passionate concern about the Third World may not be the largest or most powerful, they are, nevertheless, extremely knowledgeable about these things, and it is with them that the Government's reputation at UNCTAD has sunk very low indeed? In the light of that, will my right hon. Friend yield to pressure from all quarters of the House that, having got past UNCTAD, he will now take the quickest steps to implement the actions required by the negotiations, because urgency is needed in order to raise public esteem above its present level?

Mr. Dell: I recognise that the Government's attitude on the common fund was not popular with the organisations to which my hon. Friend refers. However, that does not mean that the Government's reservations were ill-founded. I have given the House an assurance that we shall enter constructively into preparatory discussions, which have been laid down and required by the resolution upon commodities passed by the conference.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to trade union and labour relations; and for connected purposes.
It has been said that Ten-Minute Bills are rather like trying to organise a "bring and buy" on the Wembley pitch just after the Cup Final. I understand this. Yet I am fortified because I believe that I am dealing with something which is fundamental to the evolution and indeed to the very existence of the House of Commons—the individual assailed by arbitrary power. The story of this place over the centuries has been that of a long struggle to limit and balance the power of man over man. If we do not stand for this we stand for nothing in this place.
Many may conclude, because I am concerned about the trade unions, and the closed shop, that the minds of hon. Members opposite will be closed to my argument before I even begin. I do not believe that, because I do not believe that hon. Members opposite, any more than my hon. Friends, can be insensitive to the sort of unkindness, waste and injustice which I have to describe. I therefore ask sincerely, for their consideration of what I have to say. I confess that although I detest the concept of the closed shop myself, I recognise that in some circumstances it may serve as a convenient arrangement for both sides in industry. I recognise also that among those who stand against it there may be from time to time, people who seek advantage without contribution. However reprehensible that may be, my case is that this can in no sense excuse, or mitigate, the sort of injustice, even evil, which can be seen to result from the closed shop that this evil has been immeasurably extended under the Act that we have just passed in this House.
Take the absurdity of religious grounds for objection. These are undefined and in the words of the Secretary of State himself are "undefinable". He said:
… religious beliefs … are based on precepts of faith which can be tested only by those who possess that faith".—[Official Report, 11th July 1974; Vol. 876, c. 1701.]


Amen to that. He added later:
I do not know where we can find the definition of religious belief".—[Official Report, 1st October 1975, Vol. 897, c. 1390.]
Well, I will tell him—ask British Rail! Mr. Cecil Lloyd appeared before their "inquisition" in Euston Square recently. This comprised representatives of ASLEF, NUR TSSA and one from management. He pleaded religious grounds—Second Corinthians verse 6 to be precise. He gets the sack on Saturday. So does Bob Harris of Gloucester. So does Mr. Cave and his son, of Nottingham. Mr. Cave has done 26 years service with British Rail. He belongs to the Christadelphians Sect, which counsels abstinence from all worldly associations, including trade unions; but because they do not
specifically proscribe their members from joining a trade union 
freedom of conscience has been denied them, too. They got the sack. What are these people to do when they come in front of the tribunal. I suppose they must invoke the presence of God.
I wish to turn to a different kind of case—that of two ladies, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Tarrant, who have been employed by a small firm of printers, Philip and Tacey, of Andover, Mrs. Peters since 1972 and her daughter, Mrs. Tarrant, since 1971. This case has been of particular concern to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and happily it, at least, has attracted some publicity thanks to the vigilance of Mr. Bernard Levin. Mrs. Tarrant joined the union SOGAT but her mother, Mrs. Peters, refused, although I think she might have changed her mind had it not been for what followed. SOGAT subsequently declared her work "black" by a vote of 35 to 16 and she was obliged to sit around doing nothing. Her daughter, Mrs. Tarrant, then resigned from the union and both were subsequently subjected to a sustained campaign of badgering, vilification and bullying which lasted, according to the tribunal, from February 1973 to January 1974. No union officials were involved, but no union officials put a stop to it either. After this things were said to have improved according to the tribunal and a letter described as an "olive

branch" was sent to these ladies, but they had had enough. Of course they got the sack. The last page of the tribunal report stated—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. First, it is almost impossible for me to know the interchanges below the Gangway and, secondly, a Ten-Minute Bill is usually heard in silence.

Mr. Hastings: I should be grateful for injury time, Mr. Speaker. The report said:
We have no doubt that some, if not the majority, of Mrs. Peters' and Mrs. Tarrant's fellow workers were beastly to them and treated them with inhumanity 
But they concluded that from early 1974 the atmosphere became more relaxed and the union was prepared
to let bygones be bygones".
Therefore:
Neither applicant had reasonable grounds for objection".
I quote from Hansard:
It is better that these matters should be settled by peaceful persuasion. That is the cause for which we stand and this Bill is part of our remedy."—[Official Report, 7th May 1974; Vol. 873, c. 245.]
Those are the words of that apostle of liberty the present Leader of the House. I invite him to go down to Andover and to explain what he meant to Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Tarrant.
I have a letter from Mr. A. M. Potter of Keston in Kent who describes how a union called the Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers and Engravers, directly encouraged by this Act, is trying to threaten their way into advertising art, writing and photography. He writes:
During all my 35 years in my trade I have never known anyone express any desire for union involvement in our affairs. Nor has there been any complaint concerning wages or conditions that has not been satisfactorily dealt with by ourselves. Our workers and employers enjoy great mutual respect.
On one occasion recently when officials of this SLADE visited the studio, "blacking" notices were put up. When the employers asked whether the union had consulted the employees the answer was "We do not care what your staff says, we shall get them."
Let us consider the matter of grounds a little more widely for a moment. Mr. Rex Frost, of British Transport


Hotels, when told recently "Join or go" wrote to the Manager (Train Catering Department):
I am now required to sign an application on which I undertake to abide loyally by the rules of the Association and to use my best endeavours to promote its objects and interests. It would be quite wrong for me to use my best endeavours to promote any objects or interests which I believe to be harmful to my country, my employers, my colleagues and myself. To retain my job by signing a statement which I know to be false would be as dishonest as obtaining goods by signing a cheque which I knew to be worthless.
Is that unreasonable? Incidentally I am informed that Mr. Frost has not had a reply to that letter.
Mr. Roger Webster, 18 years' service with British Rail, was sacked last week. He gave this, among others, as his reason for objection:
Talk of benefits negotiated by the unions is nonsense. The total process of all union negotiations causes us all to be impoverished. When there is no money in the national kitty we cannot have more on the pay slip without it being borrowed money; without it having less purchasing power; without it bleeding our social structure; without it causing unemployment; without it debilitating our industry.
Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer disagree with those remarks? 
Anyway, by what process have these heroes in British Rail decided that their membership wants the closed shop at all? Mr. Willsteed is about to leave the shipping and international services division at Southern House. The hat was passed round on his behalf by his colleagues, and they are trade unionists. The appeal was headed "Farewell with honour". It went on:
In the eyes of many of us his stand for freedom and personal conviction is a most worthy one and you may care to contribute even a token amount towards a gesture on his departure"'.
All but three of his colleagues did.
What are these unfortunate people to do unless this Act is changed? I will tell hon. Members one thing. Mr. Webster whom I have already mentioned—they have picked on the wrong man in Mr. Webster—has established with some difficulty what many of us know—that this law has no parallel in West Europe, where the closed shop is either very rare or expressly forbidden by law. He is taking his case and that of 20 of his colleagues to the European Court of Human Rights where there is a very

good chance that it will be seen to transgress either Article 9 or Article 11 or both. The British Government attested to the Treaty in 1951, but what a state of affairs when an Englishman has to turn to an international court for justice in his own country! 
The sufferers in all these cases—and I have done my best to check this—share three qualities. They are not troublemakers of shirkers, they are loyal to their employers and they are hard-working and competent people. These qualities avail them little, it seems, in trade union-dominated Socialist Britain. Happily, however, through the Press and through organisations such as the National Association for Freedom, some of these cases are coming to light, but what worries me are those which do not come to light at all. How many are averted because people are afraid—afraid of bullying and intimidation, afraid of deprivation, afraid of the consequences of unemployment, afraid of what they regard as the inevitability of union power, against which there is no redress or possibility of appeal? 
Again and again this Government claim that only they can get on with the unions. Well, this is the price of it, this toll of injustice and even persecution under the law. People tolerate this sort of thing from one motive only, and that is fear. So long as such a situation persists, this is not truly a free country and most certainly the House of Commons is failing in its duty.
I say to the hon. Members opposite that just for once they should put aside Socialist precepts and resist the pressures of the mighty outside this place. Let us all, for once, listen to the lesson of history and the warnings which these events so clearly sound for us, and—before oppression becomes a habit—let us amend this abominable law.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I rise to oppose leave being given to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings).
This Government have a good record of improving industrial relations and repairing the damage of earlier years. The progress can be outlined by an extract from the Department of Employment Gazette for May which shows that. From


January to April 1975, 2,106,000 days were lost through industrial disputes, but that in the corresponding period this year, that figure was down to 1,188,000. The first election of 1974, in February, was fought at a time of conflict and confrontation with the trade union movement. This Government have replaced that policy and we now have a policy of conciliation and co-operation.
The Government presented the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill in November 1975 to reverse the Opposition amendments made, against the Government's wishes, to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act of 1974. That Act was the first step towards the repair of industrial relations by repealing the Conservatives' notorious Industrial Relations Act of 1971. The two particular cases to which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred arose under the previous Government's Act.
The second step in the Government's programme for industrial relations was the Employment Protection Act, which built on the foundations laid down by the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act by extending workers' rights and strengthening collective bargaining. It provided also for guaranteed payments for those on short time, financial protection for employees whose employers became insolvent, longer notice of termination of employment and advance consultation with trade unions about planned redundancies.
The rights of workers have advanced a great deal since 1926. I was at a meeting in the Valleys of South Wales on Saturday with miners who remembered that period when miners earned 19s. 6d. and worked a six-day week. In that period, the workers bad virtually no rights. Now the trade union movement has become far stronger. The problem in Britain today is not that the unions are too strong but that they are not strong enough. We in this House should appeal to every worker, by hand or brain, to join his appropriate trade union.
If the liberty of the people of this country has been increased and enhanced, it is because of the efforts of the trade union movement. One has only to read the history of the Todpuddle Martyrs and others to see that.
Closed shop agreements between employers and unions have been legal again since September 1974, when the Industrial Relations Act was repealed. Does anyone wish to return to the time when that Act was on the statute book? Even the Conservative leadership dissociate themselves from that.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred to the dismissal of Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Tarrant, which arose under the legislation of the previous Government. An independent industrial tribunal said that their dismissal was not unfair because they were considered to have no good reason for declining to join the closed shop.

Mr. Hastings: Mr. Hastings rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In theory, both hon. Members are being heard in silence.

Mr. Evans: The main argument for resisting the Bill is that labour relations have been exhaustively discussed here and elsewhere for a number of years. I pay tribute to the Leader of the House. When Secretary of State for Employment he introduced the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act of 1974, the Employment Protection Act of 1975 and the amending Act of 1976.
The issues raised today have been raised extensively and considered during the passage of the Industrial Relations Act and before. Nothing new arises on the Bill. What is needed now is for employers, management, employees and unions to get together to get us out of our present difficulties. There has been a tremdendous response by trade union leaders. Jack Jones, High Scanlon and others are giving a lead. It is a pity that the Conservative Party could not have given the same lead over the pound.
I hope that the House will throw out the Bill and that we shall make greater progress towards improving industrial relations.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 226 Noes 287.

Division No. 166.]
AYES
[4.20 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Grist, Ian
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Arnold, Tom
Grylls, Michael
Osborn, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hall, Sir John
Page, John (Harrow West)


Awdry, Daniel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Banks, Robert
Hampson, Dr Keith
Paisley, Rev Ian


Beith, A. J.
Hannam, John
Pardoe, John


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Parkinson, Cecil


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hastings, Stephen
Percival, Ian


Benyon, W.
Havers, Sir Michael
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hawkins, Paul
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biffen, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Prior, Rt Hon James


Biggs-Davison, John
Hicks, Robert
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Raison, Timothy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hooson, Emlyn
Rathbone, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Hordern, Peter
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brittan, Leon
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brotherton, Michael
Hunt, John
Rifkind, Malcoim


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hurd, Douglas
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Buck, Antony
James, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Burden, F. A.
Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jessel, Toby
Royle, Sir Anthony


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Sainsbury, Tim


Churchill, W. S.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jopling, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Clegg, Walter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Cockcroft, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kimball, Marcus
Shersby, Michael


Cope, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Silvester, Fred


Cordle, John H.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sims, Roger


Cormack, Patrick
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sinclair, Sir George


Corrie, John
Lane, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Costain, A. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Crouch, David
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lawrence, Ivan
Spence, John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lawson, Nigel
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Ian
Stainton, Keith


Drayson, Burnaby
Loveridge, John
Stanley, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Luce, Richard
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Durant, Tony
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McCrindle, Robert
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macfarlane, Neil
Stokes, John


Eyre, Reginald
MacGregor, John
Storehouse, Rt Hon John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stradling, Thomas J.


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Farr, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tebbit, Norman


Fell, Anthony
Marten, Neil
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mates, Michael
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mather, Carol
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Maude, Angus
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Forman, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan, Dr Gerard



Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mayhew, Patrick
Wakeham, John


Freud, Clement
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Molyneaux, James
Walters, Dennis


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Monro, Hector
Warren, Kenneth


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Montgomery, Fergus
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wells, John


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, Geraint
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wiggin, Jerry


Goodlad, Alastair
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mudd, David
Younger, Hon George


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Neave, Airey



Gray, Hamish
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grieve, Percy
Newton, Tony



Griffiths, Eldon
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Geoffrey Pattie and Mr. Nick Budgen.


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Nott, John








NOES


Allaun, Frank
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Anderson, Donald
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McNamara, Kevin


Archer, Peter
Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Magee, Bryan


Ashley, Jack
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Atkinson, Norman
Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marquand, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Bates, Alf
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Meacher, Michael


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
George, Bruce
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Dr John
Mendelson, John


Bishop, E. S.
Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Golding, John
Millan,. Bruce


Boardman, H.
Gould, Bryan
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Graham, Ted
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Moonman, Eric


Bradiey, Tom
Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bray, Or Jeremy
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Buchanan, Richard
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Newens, Stanley


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Noble, Mike


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hatton, Frank
Oakes, Gordon


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Ogden, Eric


Campbell, Ian
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
O'Halloran, Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Heffer, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice


Cant, R. B.
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Carmichael, Neil
Horam, John
Ovenden, John


Carter, Ray
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Owen, Dr David


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Padley, Walter


Cartwright, John
Huckfield, Les
Palmer, Arthur


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Park, George


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parry, Robert


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pavitt, Laurie


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Colquhoun. Ms Maureen
Hunter, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Concannon, J. D.
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Perry, Ernest


Conlan, Bernard
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Prescott, John


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cronin, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Richardson, Miss Jo


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cryer, Bob
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Judd, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kerr, Russell
Rowlands, Ted


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kinnock, Neil
Selby, Harry


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dempsey, James
Lamborn, Harry
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sillars, James


Eadle, Alex
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Silverman, Julius


Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lipton, Marcus
Small, William


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Litterick, Tom
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Loyden, Eddie
Snape, Peter


English, Michael
Luard, Evan
Spearing, Nigel


Ennals, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stallard, A. W.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McElhone, Frank
Stott, Roger


Evans, John (Newton)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Strang, Gavin


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Gregor
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Maclennan, Robert
Swain, Thomas







Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Ward, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Watkins, David
Williams, Sir Thomas


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Watkinson, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Tierney, Sydney
Weetch, Ken
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Tinn, James
Weitzman, David
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Tomlinson, John
Wellbeloved, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Tomney, Frank
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Woodall, Alec


Torney, Tom
White, James (Pollok)
Woof, Robert


Tuck, Raphael
Whitehead, Phillip
Young, David (Bolton E)


Urwin, T. W.
Whitlock, William



Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wigley, Dafydd
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. Ivor Clemitson and Mr. George Rodgers.


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Education Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your assistance on a matter that is causing great inconvenience to the whole House, to no one more than yourself. Because of the change of business, no printed paper was available until 1.30 p.m. for the business now to be discussed. Indeed, papers became available only because of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks). So far as I am aware, neither the Department nor the Leader of the House did anything to secure the availability of those papers to enable you, Mr. Speaker, to make your selection of amendments, and hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House to know precisely what business they would be discussing today.
Again and again, similar incidents occur. I should like to express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Government will look, not for the first time, at the question of ensuring that the papers necessary for the conduct of our business are available in time.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am certainly prepared, as the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) suggested in the latter part of his remarks, to look at this question for the future. I regret that the marshalled list of amendments to the Bill was not available in the House before 1.15 p.m. today. Because of the abnormal number of amendments tabled yesterday, the final copy was not available for the Parliamentary Press until 2.5 p.m. today.
Marshalled amendments, totalling 223 pages, were required for the consideration of nine Bills today. Priority of production was given to amendments to be considered in Committees at 10.30 a.m.
I apologise for the inconvenience caused to the House by this delay, but the House owes a great debt of gratitude

to the servants of the House in the Stationery Office who worked very hard last night to try to meet the requirements of the House. The fault does not rest with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "It rests with you."] Yes, but it is also a matter of courtesy that the House should pay tribute to those who worked hard last night to meet an abnormal flood of amendments. I apologise to the House for the fact that the documents were not available, but the House also owes a debt of gratitude to the workers who produce the documents.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the apology that he has made, and I accept it. I wish to make clear that I am in no way reproaching the staff of the House or of the Stationery Office, who have to deal with a great volume of business at short notice. It is the short notice from which my complaint stems. If the Government reorganise their business at short notice, for whatever reason, they must take special measures to ensure that the necessary papers are available. If they cannot be made available for good reasons, the Government should cancel the business.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall listen to the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) in one moment. I allowed the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to make his point, which is not a point of order that I can deal with, because the House has the right to an expression of opinion when papers are late.

Dr. Hampson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In what circumstances can the expensive machinery downstairs be used by the House? As the onus rests on the Leader of the House to service hon. Members, should not he have checked whether the printed papers were ready by 11.30 am, when the Stationery Office and the Clerk's Office expected them? Surely, the Leader of the House should keep a watchful eye on these matters and use our emergency procedures if necessary.

Mr. Foot: If there has been any mistake in the operations, I shall inquire


into it. All I am saying, as I am perfectly entitled to say, is that an abnormal amount of work was thrust upon the servants of the House last night, and it is right that this should be mentioned in the House because those responsible worked very hard to try to meet the requirements of the House.

Mr. William van Straubenzee (Woking-ham): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a different but related point, may I ask for guidance? We have in our hands only your provisional selection of amendments up to New Clause 50. I make no criticism of the Chair, which must have had to work at very short notice. Will you tell those of us who want to follow these matters with appropriate expedition and care when we shall know the selection of amendments? The Government's intention is that we shall deal with this business at this sitting, and it hardly seems reasonable that we should do so without knowing the amendments selected for debate.

Mr. Speaker: I can inform the House that I have signified a provisional list of amendments up to New Clause 45. I thought that would be adequate for the House until 6 o'clock, when I shall be able to produce the rest of the list.

New Clause 2

CERTAIN APPOINTMENTS OF TEACHERS TO BE PROVISIONAL

The appointment of teachers by a local education authority under section 24(1) of the Education Act 1944 to a proposed new school or to a school to be altered in accordance with proposals made under section 13 of the said Act, shall be considered provisional until the establishment of the new school or changed school; and such contracts as may be prepared in anticipation of such future appointments shall be considered null and void in the event of the new school, or the school changed under proposals made under section 13, not being established'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I shall explain to the House the technicalities of this new clause, but it is not wholly technical. It has contemporary relevance and would have, in certain circumstances, far-reaching effects. The appointment of teachers is, of course, a

power within the scope of local education authorities, and that power of appointment is part of the idea of diarchy which runs throughout our educational system—or which did run through it until this Bill appeared to strike a note of discord. It has been a fundamental principle of our system under the Education Acts from 1944 onwards that there has been not one power but two; indeed, one could say three, because the powers of the Secretary of State have been very carefully balanced against those of local education authorities, and the powers of both those persons or groups of persons have been balanced against the rights and powers of the voluntary schools.
The whole educational system has grown up gradually and organically. It has been essentially an evolutionary system, not a manufactured one. It has grown up over a very long period and has adapted itself according to circumstances. It has not been modelled on a kind of Benthamite blueprint, thought up in the mind of some super-Secretary of State. It is important to note the position of the voluntary schools, to which we shall come back in other new clauses and amendments, because those schools were first on the educational scene. Long before the State took an interest in educational matters the Churches were in the field, doing their educational work.
It is not the intention of this new clause to interfere in any way with that balance and harmony. With regard to voluntary schools of the aided variety, the appointment of teachers is in the first place a matter for the governors, and that is an extremely vital power to them. But it is for the local education authorities to determine the number to be employed, and they have eventual powers of dismissal. Section 24 of the 1944 Act, to which this new clause refers, ends with provisions for the protection of women that are, happily, no longer necessary, saying that no person shall be disqualified from holding a teaching position merely because she is a woman, and that no one is to be dismissed because of marriage. Those provisions may well have been necessary in 1944, but I hope that they are no longer necessary to have in law, though the principle is correct today.
The powers of local educational authorities to employ teachers should be retained. The frequently-expressed fear


under the various proposals for reform of the rate is that local education authorities would lose control, because they would have no direct financial responsibility for the education service. As long as local education authorities continue to employ teachers and as long as there is co-operation between them and the governors of voluntary schools, those fears, I believe, need not be taken too seriously, because independence will be preserved through that mechanism rather than a financial mechanism, as such.
4.45 p.m.
This amendment can be considered in relation not only to Section 24 of the Education Act 1944 but to Section 13 of that Act, perhaps the most celebrated section of the whole Act, with which generations of Ministers have struggled and moved into travail at various points.
It is precisely in a situation that would be created by proposals put forward under the Section 13 procedure that this amendment would come into operation. Perhaps I may briefly remind the House of the provisions of that section. Where it is desired to establish a new school, to maintain a school that was not previously maintained, or to cease to maintain a school, or where it is thought desirable to make a significant change in the character of a school by way of enlargement or otherwise, recourse must be had to the very detailed procedures laid down by Section 13.
I do not believe that hon. Members at the present moment—at any rate those on the Opposition side of the House—are likely to make the mistake of underestimating the importance of procedure, because we have no constitution, and if we disregard procedure our system, far from being the guarantor of liberty, is in fact a system under which there can be more tyrannous oppression than under any other democratic system so designed. That is why, in recent days, the Opposition have attached such importance to the preservation of the due procedures of this House; because the preservation of those procedures as laid down by law is as much a protection of the liberty of the subject and a protection of freedom in education as it is a protection in wider spheres.
Section 13 provides that proposals must be submitted to the Secretary of State if any of the changes that I have detailed are to be made. The same goes for voluntary schools if there are to be changes in their status. Subsection (3) makes quite clear what those procedures are—public notice, two months for objection, and numerous other important procedures that are laid down. The courts have been zealous in enforcing these procedures and making sure that they were followed in every case, both in the spirit and in the letter.
There is one important point that applies to this new clause, as I shall hope to show, namely, the difference in the status of proposals in relation to new schools and alterations to existing schools. If proposals for a new school are approved by the Secretary of State it becomes the duty of the authority that has put forward the proposals to give effect to them in accordance with the specifications and plans so approved, but that provision does not apply to proposals for the alteration of an existing school.
This point will recur throughout our debates. Once the Section 13 procedure is started, an element of uncertainty is automatically introduced into the position of schools. Once the proposals are put forward, they are subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. There is the possibility of revised proposals being pit forward by the local education authority and there is also the possibility of an overriding change of circumstances, which may well cause a local education authority to change its mind and not wish to go ahead with plans and proposals. That may happen because those plans are no longer appropriate in the changed conditions of the time, or there may be a political change in the weather—a change that will alter totally the policy followed in a particular area. This is not an academic disquisition, because we are faced with exactly that decision in what has been going on in the borough of Tameside since the local elections took place. There was a political change in that instance.
I shall be as objective as I can in describing the situation for which this clause is designed. I applaud the Secretary of State, who has been so judicious in his observations so far.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Malley): Does not the hon. Gentleman mean "judicial"?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I mean "judicious", although the right hon. Gentleman may well have to exercise a judicial rôle. That is the distinction that I make. I choose my words carefully, although I do not possess a first-class degree of the kind about which we hear so much from the Secretary of State.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend has an even better degree.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I possess another first-class degree, although not of the same kind. Because of his judicial capacity, the right hon. Gentleman may be called on to exercise his powers under Section 68 of the 1944 Act, which enables him to direct a local education authority if he comes to the conclusion that it is making unreasonable use of its functions. He should be careful in every word he utters. Indeed, we should all be careful, but I am not under the same degree of restraint as is the Secretary of State. In the Tameside situation, with which this amendment is specifically designed to deal, there are two important principles at stake. One cannot really judge a situation fairly or objectively unless one gives full weight to both.
First, there is a matter of paramount importance, which was referred to at Question Time, namely, that those who are elected on an explicit manifesto should fulfil the promises made therein.

Mr. Mike Noble: Will the hon. Gentleman describe, for the benefit of the House, exactly what he means by an explicit manifesto, and particularly in circumstances dealing with education matters? Will he comment on the situation in which a Conservative candidate in the Tameside elections suggested changes in the education system but could not spell the word "policy" or write a grammatical letter that the parents could understand?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The first thing I did when this matter came to my attention—the Secretary of State was "resting" at the time—was to ask to see the manifesto. My apprenticeship was

served under my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in that notable period at the Department of Education and Science which has become colloquially known as "the glorious reign"—a phrase invented by a Minister of State.
In these controversial public issues, one must check the facts before one says or does anything. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) that I checked the exact words in the general manifesto issued on behalf of the Conservative Group. That said quite explicitly:
The present comprehensive system will not be implemented.

Mr. Noble: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read the rest of that passage.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not wish to go on reading extracts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He has mixed up two documents and is referring to another document, of which I have a copy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] It is issued by an individual councillor and was not a group manifesto. I am not trying to catch out the hon. Gentleman. That is the situation. I have a copy of that document, and it contains a spelling mistake. We do not know whether it is a spelling mistake by the printers or by the author. I remember saying in the House not so long ago that I was not responsible for the orthography of Press notices. That word appeared in Hansard as "authography". Even the hon. Member for Rossendale could not hold me responsible for that. It is the group manifesto that is important.
The second point is that the education of children should not be disturbed. Unfortunately, we are in a political situation in which the education of children is frequently disturbed, but that is not of our choosing. That is why I have continually made the point to the right hon. Gentleman that the Opposition would be willing to reach a reasonable agreement on these problems if the Secretary of State would allow a dialogue to be initiated on the subject of selection. We cannot have a dialogue if we regard selection in itself as an ultimate and absolute evil. One can only have an unconditional surrender one way or the other. If one looked at the question rationally and said that there might be a place for


selection in a mainly comprehensive system, one would be in business, and would not face this kind of confrontation, which is not of our choosing. But if the alternative is to abandon all variety in schools and to commit ourselves wholly and totally to a system that is now subject to widespread criticism, we can only continue our battle.
It is important to examine the situation at Tameside in greater detail in order to grasp the need for this new clause. The situation there was that under the previous Labour administration proposals were prepared to go comprehensive. The five existing grammar schools were to go, two sixth-form colleges were to be set up, and 11 to 16 all-through comprehensive schools were to be established in the existing secondary modern schools and in certain grammar schools. That is where the first fault occurred.
That scheme was pushed forward by the then administration with undue haste, in the knowledge that an election was in the offing and that there might well be a change of administration. They were perfectly entitled to take that view and to act upon it, but it would have been a more reasonable attitude to say "We know there is this likelihood of a change. We know that it is a central plank in the platform of the alternative administration not to implement the comprehensive proposals, and we shall therefore wait to see what is the verdict of the electorate before we seek to push ahead with these proposals." That is a reasonable point to make. I make it because too often in the Press the Conservative administration there has been represented as irresponsibly overturning an established system. That is not the case, because a blueprint for a system was pushed forward with a measure of irresponsibility by the previous administration.
5.0 p.m.
When the change of control took place, naturally the Conservative council stuck to its election pledge. I have heard it is said in all seriousness that the council was behaving dishonourably in so doing because no one expected it to fulfil that election pledge. That is an extraordinary point to make. I hope that the vocation of politics—which is the highest vocation a person can fill—has not reached such a point of degradation that people feel

that election pledges can be totally unobserved.

Mr. Noble: Would not the hon. Member agree that, as well as putting forward a negative proposal not to do something, a political party has the responsibility to put forward a positive proposal and to say that it will do something? In these circumstances, it would appear that the Conservative administration did not do this in Tameside because it had not discussed any proposals in council. It had never discussed any long-term proposals. Its short-term proposals were not to implement the comprehensive scheme. Surely it is political dishonesty not to put forward an alternative.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: A pledge not to implement the comprehensive proposals implied a system of maintaining selective schools, but it was right for the council not to commit itself at that point to any particular method of selection. It was right that the council should have freedom to manoeuvre and to examine the situation when it got into office. The council has been faced with continual difficulties in fulfilling its pledge although it has been very flexible in its approach. The hon. Member for Rossendale laughs, but the council's first reaction was to introduce an 11-plus examination at short notice. When members of the council approached me, I pointed out to them that as far as the Conservative Party nationally was concerned the restoration of an 11-plus examination was not an essential part of our education policy. The hon. Gentleman has heard this often enough in Committee. We are not tied to any particular method of selection any more than we are tied to a general system of selection. We believe in a system of progressive selection—that is, selection at 11, 12, 13 and 14 by a diversity of methods. We believe that examinations, reports of teachers and guided parental choice all have their part to play in this process.
The Tameside council showed its flexibility in that it was prepared to say that the 11-plus was not an essential part of its policy and it was prepared to abandon it and come up with an alternative scheme. There were local problems involved in the situation, which the new clause is designed to deal with specifically. Notably among these problems is the position of teachers.
Arrangements and contracts had been made with the teachers which guaranteed them a certain increase in salary because of the positions they were taking up in comprehensive schools. There would have been problems of breach of contract if those undertakings had not been fulfilled. It was the council's decision to honour the contracts with the teachers, because just as it is wrong for children to suffer, it is also wrong for teachers to suffer because of political changes. Therefore, it was right that in the new situation the contracts should be honoured.
However, a situation of doubt is created by this kind of thing, and it is that situation which the new clause is intended to remedy. It provides that in circumstances such as those which arose in Tameside, where contracts were arranged on the basis of a situation which had totally changed by the time the contracts were due to come into operation, legal liability should cease. This is a perfectly reasonable change to make in the law. It would be unreasonable to make its operation in any way retrospective, but to create a new contractural situation in which the parties know their legal rights and obligations is something which is in a quite different category.
The purpose of the new clause is precisely to resolve that dilemma. I hope that, although it cannot help directly in the present situation because it is not retrospective, it will help in situations in the future, and it will help in Tameside to resolve the dispute in an amicable and reasonable way. One must recognise that if this dispute develops into a major confrontation there is only one certain result—that the education of the children will suffffer. That is why the rôle of the Secretary of State is so important, because he has the opportunity, when he sees the representatives of Tameside, to act as a peacemaker. He can put his political and doctrinal views to one side and seek a solution which is in the best interests of everyone there—the councillors with their election pledges, the teachers with their proper concern for educational values, and, above all, the children. The exact proposals put forward by the Tameside authority seem to me to provide the basis for a reasonable settlement.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: How does the new clause affect the position concerning the appointment of teachers? Suppose that I had applied for a teaching position in one of the new comprehensive schools when the previous authority was in office. I would have to hand in my notice, at my present employment in another school or with another authority. The new clause says that a new appointment to a new authority is not valid until the proposals under Section 13 and the rest have been established. How would I get on? Would I have to leave my previous employer in limbo and say that I might have a new job but that I could not be quite sure because it would depend on what happened?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If the new clause is passed, it will create a new situation.

Mr. Mulley: indicated assent.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's Pauline conversion.

Mr. Mulley: We want to mark our appreciation of the hon. Member's touch of modesty.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I probably contracted it from looking at the right hon. Gentleman.
A new situation would be created, because there would be new rules. It would be an elementary rule of common sense that one did not give up one's existing appointment until the new appointment had been confirmed. It would be the same situation as that which faces any hon. Member seeking a safer seat. He would be unwise to renounce his present seat until he had been adopted in the new constituency. That is an elementary rule of self-preservation and common sense.
The Tameside authority has proposed that the existing status of all secondary schools would be temporarily maintained, whether those schools were comprehensive, secondary modern or grammar. This is not therefore an anti-comprehensive proposal. Sixth form colleges would not be established, but the five grammar schools would continue to cater for children aged between 11 and 18.
Children in their final year at primary school, who had already been allocated a


place at secondary school, would go to that school subject only to the eception that new allocations would be required to provide an intake of children in the Ashton and Hyde grammar schools, which would be done away with under the proposals put forward by the previous administration. That would therefore be an increase in opportunity, and more grammar school places would be available. Allocation of these places would be on the basis not of examination but of professional guidance and parental choice. An appeals procedure would be established for parents dissatisfied with their child's original or new allocation. For those where no new allocation would be possible the original allocation would be honoured.
The Tameside proposal would mean that no child's education need be disturbed unless at the wish of the parent or child concerned, so the proposals do not create any kind of educational chaos. They provide a revised opportunity to parents who are dissatisfied with the existing allocation to have a fresh allocation, and they seek to provide extra grammar school places.

Mr. Clement Freud: What would be the benefit to children to be taught by an insecure gang of provisionally appointed teachers?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that that situation would confer much advantage on anyone. It has no application to this case. The security of both teachers and children is taken care of. The hon. Member's nightmare vision is confined to his fevered fantasies.
I come to the question of those who have been offered places at sixth form colleges. This is an important consideration, which the Secretary of State will be thinking about tomorrow. First, existing grammar school pupils would remain at their present schools, so that they would not have to change schools or go to sixth form colleges. There would be less disturbance for them, because they could continue at those schools. Existing secondary modern pupils seeking A-level courses would be offered equivalent courses in the sixth forms of existing grammar schools, so that their position would be protected.
The existing secondary modern pupil seeking O levels or CSE levels would re-

main at their present schools or be offered places at the existing grammar schools. I think that shows that many of the fears that have been expressed have been based on false assumptions and false premises. It is right to have these fears, and I make no accusation about those who are concerned because I, too, was most anxious.
Under the revised scheme, subject to modifications that the Secretary of State may suggest, there is room for a reasonable settlement that would protect not the rights of the councillors but the rights of the electorate and the duties of the councillors to abide by the pledge which they made and the platform on which they were elected. It is a settlement that would safeguard the educational future of the children concerned because everyone in this House is obviously deeply concerned on that score. It would also protect the position of the teachers.
I saw the teachers when I went to Tameside. Like other groups, they are divided on this issue. Some of the teachers' unions support the council, while others do not. I am sure that the teachers would agree that the determination of policy must rest with the authority. Of course it is right that the teachers should express their views on educational matters that are within their competence, but in the last analysis responsibility for the decision and the right to make a decision must be with the local education authority. If it is not we shall have a system of anarchy in the schools, where teachers would supplant the local education authorities. There must be a balance in this matter, and the purpose of the clause is to achieve a better balance.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Mulley: I appreciate that my remarks may not end this discussion, but it may be convenient if I put some thoughts before the House at this point. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) raised a number of aspects that I cannot pursue. For example, it would be wrong for me to express views about the efforts of Conservatives who seek to switch their seats to safer constituencies. That is a field in which I have no knowledge or experience, but they are ethics that I would not want to export into other fields of activity.
The other aspect that I should resist the temptation to say much about is the situation that has inspired or at least had


some part to play in the drafting of this new clause. I refer to the situation in the metropolitan district of Tameside. Obviously, whatever view the House may take of this clause it would not be relevant to the current situation of the contracts that that authority has made with teachers unless we were to seek to give retrospective effect to it. That is not something that I could recommend to the House.
We could, perhaps, rush the Bill through so that it could have a relevance in the Tameside situation. That is a proposition that I should be willing to examine with some sympathy.
There are problems in the current operation of the Section 13 procedure. Quite obviously the council does not seek new appointments or make them until its proposals for a new school or for a significant change in a school that require Section 13 approval have actually received that approval. But under the present arrangements councils are not obliged to give effect to proposals that they or their predecessors have made.
That is clearly a problem and that is why we are seeking in the Bill to remedy the situation. Clause 4 requires councils to carry out such proposals as have been approved by the Secretary of State. In that way we seek to remedy the difficulty to which the hon. Member for Chelmsford rightly drew attention. I hope that when we discuss Clause 4 we shall have the Opposition's support.

Dr. Hampson: How does the Secretary of State square that remark with the many times that his party has justified its Left-wing programme of nationalisation on the grounds that it was in its manifesto? Such proposals were different from those which the previous Tory Government were to pursue.

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) should try to contain himself. I have not yet come to the subject of manifestos or anything of that kind. I am trying to point out that we are closing the gap between seeking proposals for a new school, or a change of status of a school, and the present situation, in which a council can decline to carry out the powers for which it has sought authority. That gap will be closed by Clause 4.
I do not wish to give a view on the merits of the Tameside situation until the Tameside council, which is meeting this afternoon, has expressed its views to me. I hope that it will do that tomorrow. I am sure that it will wish to put me in the picture about its teachers' contracts.

Dr. Hampson: Dr. Hampson rose—

Mr. Mulley: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Ripon but it will only prolong the debate if hon. Members try to make speeches when I am in the middle of mine.

Dr. Hampson: Even if Clause 4 were implemented, it is not right to say that it would close the gap. At most it would only reduce or narrow it.

Mr. Mulley: We can discuss that subject later. We can effectively deal with the difficulty to which the new clause is directed—namely, that staff can be appointed when the school is not in a position to employ staff.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford said that the period from 11th November, when the approval was given to the Tameside scheme, to the beginning of May, when the elections were held, was so short as to justify a criticism that the council acted with undue haste. I take his point. The matter has been raised in discussion about the decision of the present council. I also take note of the hon. Gentleman's recommendation of the council for its flexibility. I take particular note of that commendation, because it comes from a master of intellectual gymnastics and therefore it has weight.
New Clause 26, about transport, surprised me because it was in the name of the hon. Member for Chelmsford and tabled after he sought assurances that any new arrangements for transport would not penalise parents sending their children to denominational schools. That clause would put the whole burden on those parents. The hon. Member has obviously had second thoughts, and I accept his flexibility.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but the matter has nothing to do with my intellectual flexibility; it has to do with the rigidity of the rules of the House. The clause, as originally drafted, was out


of order. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in his speculation, and I recommend him to stick closely to the amendment under discussion.

Mr. Mulley: It is the oldest political trick in the game to say "do not do as I do, but do as I say". However, I stand corrected. I am sad that the hon. Gentleman thinks it right that additional burdens should be placed on parents who seek to send their children to denominational schools.
The House should reject the new clause on the grounds of principle and practice. The hon. Member for Chelmsford spoke of tyranny and freedom. I have always believed that freedom of contract was a vital part of our English law and liberty. Equally, I have always believed that local education authorities and teacher associations and trade unions should be able to make contracts without those contracts being prescribed especially for teachers by an Act of Parliament.
Without any amendment of the law it is open to an employer and prospective employee to make a provisional contract, or agree to any other conditions in the normal way. It would be repugnant to write a provision of that kind into our law. In practice it would create chaos.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) said, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to persuade teachers with established posts in one authority or school to seek other appointments or promotion, if such appointments could be cancelled at short notice. A teacher who had only a provisional agreement or contract to move to a new post in a new school would not feel able to do other than give provisional notice of his intention to quit his present post. That situation would create a chain reaction throughout the education system. It would be prejudicial to young prospective teachers in training colleges, because authorities would not know whether teachers were to leave and they would therefore not know whether there would be vacancies. That would be an appalling provision to put on to the statute book.
If that is to be the new workers' charter that the Opposition have in mind I hope that it will be given the widest possible publicity. It is repugnant to anyone who believes in the freedom of

contract and in negotiations between trade unions and employers. Such contracts should not be interfered with by an Act of Parliament. The Opposition's doctrine deserves wide publicity, and teacher's associations should be fully aware of the Opposition's policy. I am sure that all of them would wish to express strong objections to it.
Opposition Members have wept crocodile tears about the powers of local authorities and local democracy, yet they propose this unwarranted interference with the rights of local authorities in terms of the type of contracts that they can make. The proposal is preposterous. It is typical of the Opposition's attitude to the Bill that we should begin the afternoon with a proposition of that character.
There is no reason in principle or practice to commend the clause, and I hope that the House will reject it.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It lies ill in the right hon. Gentleman's mouth to castigate my hon. Friend on those grounds when the whole Bill is a dictation to local authorities.

Mr. Mulley: I admit that this is a new relationship between central and local government, but the proposals in the Bill are a mere molehill of interference with local authorities compared with the mountain of proposals to interfere with them contained in the numerous new clauses and amendments, totalling about 250. Not one of them is a Government amendment or new clause. If we accepted many of them, there would be no freedom for local education authorities.
On those grounds, I ask the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I hope that the teachers' organisations to which the Secretary of State obviously addressed some of his remarks will note the very bad attendance on the Government Benches.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: There are only seven Labour Back Benchers present.

Mr. Montgomery: A party that will have people believe that it is the only party to care about education has no more than 13 Members present. I am curious to know where the hon. Members representing Tameside are.

Mr. Mulley: Three of my hon. Friends representing Tameside constituencies are Ministers, and therefore cannot take part in this debate. One of them is here. I have received representations from my hon. Friends concerned on behalf of their constituents, but one of them is engaged in the Finance Bill Committee upstairs.

Mr. Montgomery: We realise that Ministers from other Departments cannot take part in the debate, but as the new clause was specifically directed to the Tameside problem, they could at least have listened to the views of the House on this important issue. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) deployed a very good, logical case. He made it clear that the reason for the new clause is largely the disgraceful behaviour of the previous local council in Tame-side. With a piece of typical skulduggery, when it realised that it would lose the local elections in May it produced new contracts for teachers before the current contracts had expired. That was unreasonable behaviour—a deliberate attempt to make life as difficult as possible for the newly-elected Conservative council.
Listening to some of the Socialists in Tameside, one might feel that the newly-elected council was behaving outrageously. One might get the impression that as a result of their action children are being uprooted from their schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. The previous council rushed through a plan for comprehensive education that had been approved by the Secretary of State but not implemented. When the local elections were fought on Tameside on 6th May, the Conservatives fought on a clear manifesto that if they gained control they would not continue with the plans for compulsory reorganisation. Their actions so far are perfectly justified. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) wants to interrupt, I am prepared to give way.

Mr. Noble: I cannot bear to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. His pedagogic gems are leaving us all agog.

Mr. Montgomery: If that is so, I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman has time to chat to his neighbour so much. I am surprised that he is not hanging on

my every word, as he did in Committee. Obviously, he did not learn very much there.
The importance of the clause is that it would ensure that the actions of the previous Labour council could not be repeated. It would make a new teacher contract provisional upon the creation of a new post to which it applied, and in the event of that new post or school not materialising the new contract would be null and void.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford was right to underline the fact that a local council has the right to decide what its policy should be. That is what local and central government are all about. What would happen if the Government decided to do something and the unions then said that they would not implement the policy that the Government were putting through in Westminster? The Government's attitude would he very different from their attitude on Tameside.
People have different views, but nobody will convince me that every teacher in Tameside is opposed to what the new Conservative council is doing. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman watched last week's edition of the TV programme "This Week", in which we had some marvellous shots of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) addressing a meeting of parents in the Tameside area. There was also a startling confession by a headmaster who was violently opposed to what the Conservative council was doing. When my hon. Friend interrupted him to ask what he thought about the way in which parents had voted in the local elections, the worthy headmaster said that he was not interested in how they voted. That was seen by millions of people. It is disgraceful that the wishes of parents should be summarily dismissed in that way by that headmaster because the views of a majority of parents on education in Tame-side did not coincide with his.
I hope that when the Secretary of State meets the representatives from Tameside tomorrow he will uphold local democracy and adhere to the view that what people decide in local elections should be upheld by the central Government. Otherwise, there is no point in having any more local elections. We may as well sit back and


let this Government decide everything that happens in local authorities throughout the country.
I was not particularly disappointed by the Secretary of State's speech. It was the sort of speech I thought we should hear from him. I am sorry that, having listened only to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, the Secretary of State is asking the House to reject the clause. Although my hon. Friend made a very convincing speech, I am sure that there will be other convincing speeches from the Opposition Benches. I hope that as the debate continues more and more of my hon. Friends will make an extremely good case for the clause, and that we shall have a change of heart by the Government.

Mr. Noble: It has been very interesting to listen to the contributions of Conservative Members. I understand that the Opposition's leading spokesman, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), unfortunately does not have experience as a parent or experience in local authority affairs, and perhaps does not quite understand the significance of all the pressures and tensions that the wrecking activities of his party colleagues in Tameside have caused in that area. Perhaps the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) suffers from some of the same disabilities, though at least he does not lack the experience of being deeply involved in the affairs of an education committee.
Perhaps we can bring some sense to the debate. I should like first to state my interest as a parent. I have a child in a grammar school—[Interruption.]the last intake before reorganisation. I have a younger child in a comprehensive school and another child in a primary school. Having been the chairman of an education committee. I can understand some of the problems faced by parents and teachers in Tameside.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Noble: Not yet.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Mr. Peter Morrison rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. If the hon. Member does not wish to give way, he must not be pressed.

Mr. Noble: Let us dispel the argument that a majority of parents voted in favour of this piece of Tory skulduggery. The turnout in the election was only about 35 per cent. and the overall majority was only about 18 votes. The Tories can hardly claim that as an overwhelming victory. There were other issues in the election. I think that the key issue was green belt policy. Hon. Members who know only a little about Tameside may not be aware that the green belt policy is a burning issue in the area. That determined people's votes. If hon. Members opposite had attended the number of meetings that I have attended in Tameside and had talked to parents in the area, they would know that there would not be a majority even of 18 if the elections were held again today and the Tory plans were known. In fact, those plans are still not really known, because they are still being debated, weeks after the election.

Mr. Peter Morrison: If the hon. Member advocates comprehensive education to the extent that we heard in Committee, why does he send his child to a grammar school? He states that the overall majority for the Conservatives was 18 votes, but his Government say they have a majority in the House despite receiving the votes of only 29 per cent. of the electorate at the last General Election. The hon. Gentleman is contradicting himself again.

Mr. Noble: My daughter attends a senior high school in a comprehensive system. She just happened to be in the last selective intake. That disposes of that point.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford seemed obsessed with "due procedures". The due procedures in Tameside are that the chairman of the education committee and one of his colleagues are sending letters to parents on unofficial paper from an estate agent's office because there has not yet been a meeting of the committee. The authority by which he is acting may be somewhat doubtful.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Noble: I have already given way. I want to finish this point.
I have seen the uncertainty being caused by the present situation. I have


seen a child crying because she did not know which school she was going to. I have seen childden told that they are to take the 11 plus one week and then told that it will be the following week, and then told that the exam is off. If that is the kind of progress that this wafer-thin majority is bringing from the Conservative Party, the parents of Tameside do not want to know it.
Many technical problems are being caused in Tameside. What will be done about the allocation of children to Ashton and Hyde Grammar Schools, where I understand there are 180 places for boys but only 60 places for girls? 
Are the Opposition happy with a situation in which the parents of an 11year-old girl in Tameside will not be able to secure a place for her? Is that the kind of system of which they approve? Is that what this great advance in education proposed by the Tories means? 
This new clause is about relations with the teachers. I discovered that one of the most arduous and difficult jobs on an education committee was to recruit high-quality teachers. What will be the position of an education authority trying to recruit high-quality teachers whose contracts may be declared null and void? It will not be possible to attract the necessary quality of teachers, especially when schools are changing their character.
5.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) referred to the problems of authorities employing teachers now. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Chelmsford to say that teachers should not cancel their contracts with one authority until they have another job, but those authorities will be wanting to replace those teachers. The Opposition are creating a bureaucratic nightmare.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford admitted in Committee that education was for the benefit of children but that high morale among teachers was essential if children were to receive any benefit. What kind of morale will there be if teachers have no guarantee that their contracts will be honoured? 
We understand the Tory attitude to trade unions. Tories do not understand what the trade union movement stands

for, particularly among teachers. If the amendment is passed, the effect on relations between employing authorities and the NUT and other unions will be disastrous.
I accept the Opposition's claim that not all teachers are in favour of our proposals, but late last month the National Association of Head Teachers described the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) in colourful terms, as a morbid misdiagnoser of education ills.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend got jolly good results as a headmaster.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Lady knows her hon. Friend so well that she must have gone to one of his schools.
The National Association of Head Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters, the Union of Women Teachers and the NUT all support the proposals of the labour administration. They have made it clear that they regard it as being far too late to reverse the procedures of secondary reorganisation.
I asked the hon. Member for Brent, North in Committee at what stage he would draw the line and say it was too late to unscramble a scheme for reorganisation. Would it be when 1,000 teachers had been appointed and schools allocated in circumstances where about 90 per cent. of parents got their first choice and 96 per cent. their first or second choice? We had to conclude that the hon. Gentleman might say it was too late, at two or three minutes to 9 o'clock on the day that the children were due to start school under the new system.
The hon. Member is nodding his head. He admits it. The Opposition have no concern for the welfare of children. They are concerned simply with the maintenance of an elitist system, and their argument about parental choice falls to the ground in circumstances like those in Tameside, where more parents are satisfied with the choice of their children's school than would be possible under any system of selection—which is not parental choice, but teacher or examination selection.

Dr. Rhodes Boyson: I tell the hon. Member for Rossendale, Mr. Noble), whose speech I am privileged to follow, that I am also a parent. I also tell the hon. Gentleman that I was the head of


a school in the area that he represents. There was a queue to get into that school, although at the time, strangely enough, it was not selective. On the Opposition side of the House there is plenty of experience of selective and non-selective schools, in one way and another.
It seems that to an extent Tameside holds the interest of the House this afternoon, but the clause could affect other matters outside the Tameside situation. If a good comprehensive school system is to be introduced, it needs long planning; it is not the sort of thing that can be rushed through. Where possible, it should be done with the general agreement of all parties in the area concerned. If that is not done, someone is always forced to give way. The more that one party tries to drive through such a measure the more likely it is that there will be a backlash the other way. Labour Members may say that the present situation is a backlash, but others may consider it a return to sanity. However, if one party tries to drive through such a measure, irrespective of the views of others, there is bound to be a blacklash, unless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said, there is unconditional surrender by one side.
I believe that Questions were asked this afternoon about teacher unemployment. That is something that concerns both sides of the House. Unlike the hon. Member for Rossendale, I do not believe that concern and compassion exist on only me side of the House. It is a shortsighted view that the recognition of full truth and morality exists only on the Labour Benches, and that those on the Conservative Benches are not privileged to experience in any way a degree of concern. It is fair to say that we argue about what we think is best for children, but it is not fair to say that we are not concerned about children, that we are child beaters and wife beaters with demoniac memories and a total lack of compassion.
If there is a plan that is it to continue over five years, a falling birth rate can cause a change that may make it necessary to retract contracts. We sympathise to an extent with the Secretary of State for Education and Science for having to deal with teacher unemployment, although we should like him to do rather more about it. The present situation arose because

over four or five years there has been a change in the birth rate. The questions of teacher recruitment and teacher training have followed.
If, over five years of an original plan, or three years after consultation first took place, there is a falling birth rate, the plans that were set up will have to be changed, otherwise there will be empty places in the schools. In those circumstances it would be sensible to take back the Section 13 plans and to say "The circumstances have changed; we must do something about it".
Perhaps I should mention, for the sake of those who do not know, that Tameside is near Manchester, and on the Cheshire side. It does not help matters to call the area Tameside as many think that it is an area south of the Thames. That is thought to be the case by many who were not privileged to be born in the North. In fact, it is on the outskirts of Manchester. The direct grant schools in Manchester face the decision whether to go into the State system completely or to stay separate and independent. It is a decision that will affect a number of children entering schools in that area. It may well mean an alteration in the Section 13 plans.
Similarly, the movement or non-movement provisions—this is something that we shall discuss at a later stage—that allow or do not allow parents to move their children across boundaries, can affect recruitment. That is not a matter that concerns only Tameside, with which the hon. Member for Rossendale appears to be obsessed. My hon. Friends and I recognise that there are other issues. We have put forward the clause to try to help authorities, to enable them to adjust their Section 13 plans according to the circumstances, which may well change from the time that the plans were made.
Perhaps I should take up what the hon. Member for Tameside said about the Tameside situation. I had not intended to deal specifically with Tameside. Another matter that required a change in the Section 13 plans was political control. Before the change in political control it was the intention of the Conservatives to hold back the comprehensive scheme due to take place in September. The people in the area, including members of the Labour Party, knew that that


was the Conservative plan. Could those concerned not have waited to see what the electorate thought about their plans? Was it that the Labour Party feared the result? 
From some of the statements that I have read it seemed that the intention was to get the scheme through before the electorate could comment. After all, it was only last November that the Section 13 notice was accepted. It was known that an election was approaching and that the majority was narrow.
It seems that one of the main planks in local democracy is participation. It is a concept that Labour Members talk about and sometimes froth about. If participation means something, surely the election was an opportunity to ask the electorate "Do you want the Section 13 notice implemented?". That should have been done, if local democracy meant anything. Are the people allowed to vote only on issues that do not really matter? Perhaps dustbins do matter—indeed, my wife takes the view that it matters if they are not collected—but are people to be allowed to vote only on sanitation and parks, for example? Are they not allowed to vote on issues such as the education of children, the sale of council housing and other matters that involve general participation? It is the control of personal life that concerns the ordinary person.
However, the election was held. The information came to me—I have checked my letters this afternoon—that some of the notices of the allocation of pupils went out two days before the municipal election. Similarly, I believe that in some areas certain authorities controlled by different parties sent out rate demands either before or after the elections, according to the effect that they would have on the voting. That is a terrible state of affairs, and one that I must speak against wherever it takes place. The fact is that the notices of allocation went out only two days before the elections. It was not a matter of the Joint Four not being warned.
The professional body of teachers in the area was warned in January that the scheme was being rushed through and that there should be a delay only until the decision was announced.

Mr. Cormack: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the letters went second-class they probably did not arrive after two days?

Dr. Boyson: The depth of thought of my hon. Friend's intervention has quite staggered me. What if they were posted on Saturday, after the lunch time post? If that happened, perhaps some are still being delivered. However, I was told that the notices went out only two days before the election was held. The result of the election was that a Conservative majority was elected in Tameside.
Surprise, surprise, the Conservative majority intended to carry out its manifesto. The general public complain that both major parties sometimes do not carry out their manifestos. It is said that they change them immediately on taking office. The belief in politicians has apparently declined because of that attitude on the part of the general public. Surely the Conservative majority should receive the acclaim of Labour as well as Conservative Members in its determination to carry out its manifesto and to make local democracy a reality. There had been consultation and acceptance, and the Conservative majority intended to honour its manifesto, as I honour my own pledges.
Surely the Labour representatives should have taken the view "We have lost. That is it. We shall come back next year. That is the game." The whistle had been blown, as it blew for Manchester United. I was at the stadium, as were many others. Surely, Labour representatives should have recognised that the whistle had blown and that they would have to wait for another year, just like Manchester United. Indeed, there was better behaviour at the stadium than was displayed by Labour representatives in Tameside.
6.0 p.m.
They suggested flexibility. At the beginning they said that they would put back the 11-plus test. That is probably one of the most effective tests ever known. Most people do not like it. It is a test to which I do not want to return. But it cannot be faulted compared with other tests for choosing people for jobs.
The teachers would not co-operate. They are presumably local authority employees. We were told by the Secretary of State at Question Time, I think,


about the great glory of the freedom of local authorities to decide how many teachers they should employ.
Where was the flexibility? Was any flexibility shown by the teachers? Did they say "We realise that you have won the election. We do not want the 11-plus back. Surely we can do it in some other way, so that you can fulfil your mandate." It would have been honourable to say "The 11-plus is out. We do not like it. We shall do it if we must, but we prefer some form of guided choice." There was no stonewalling on one side, but there was complete stonewalling on the other side.
The Conservative council decided to offer the 240 places in the grammar schools to the 3,000 children in the area, through their parents. That seemed sensible. It could have been done in a week. The teachers were asked to cooperate, but they refused.
I wonder whether we have local government or workers soviets ruling in Tameside. I am sure that the view of hon. Members on the Government Benches would have been different if a Labour council had been elected. But if the bell tolls for one side, it also tolls for the other. The teachers said that they would not co-operate.
If any offer had been made, saying, in effect "If you had called your council meeting and then said either that the 11-plus is back or guided parental choice is back and that a letter would be sent out immediately," the whole attitude would have been different. But that, to my knowledge, has never been said. It was not indicated to me when I met certain teachers' leaders at that time.

Mr. Mulley: This is an important point. I am merely seeking information. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that this issue was of concern at the time of the election. Was a commitment made to restore the 11-plus or guided parental choice? There is a vast difference between the two, as I suspect the hon. Gentleman knows from his background in education.

Dr. Boyson: That is a fair question. If it helps the information not only of the Secretary of State, but of the House, I must give it. I hope that certain

Members already have the information. The commitment was to keep the grammar schools without saying how selection was to take place. One way was the 11-plus. Another way was guided parental choice, or parents applying and the heads of the schools selecting the children. That has been done in other grammar schools. Again, there was no co-operation. There was a refusal by NALGO to send out the letters. The leader of the council had to pay £300 in sending out the letters.
Were the parents indignant? Did they put the letters in the dustbin, or did they reply? There was to be genuine participation of the kind that the Tribune Group would like from what I hear of the mutterings opposite.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman, as a former headmaster, tell us what participation he had in his school during his term of office? My guess is that he had absolutely none.

Dr. Boyson: I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman, but it would take an hour or two. If there were the same degree of participation by the Labour Party, it might be a better party. I recommend a book which, by accident, I have with me. That will tell the hon. Gentleman in detail what he wants to know, and I am sure that he will gain a great deal from it. However, I must not be led astray.
About £300 was spent in sending out the letters. What did the parents do? This is what participation is about. Did they reject those letters, or did they do something about them? Within two days of the 3,000 letters being sent out, there were 700 replies. The letters did not say "Tell us whether you like what we are doing." They said "If you do not like the school to which your child has been allocated and you would like another school, either a grammar school place or transfer to another secondary modern school or transfer from one grammar school to another, send back the details to us." The replies were to go to a private house. They could not be sent to the town hall. There were 700 replies within two days.
We talk about parental choice. If these things give bureaucrats nightmares, I like giving them nightmares. I am concerned about personal participation. It


was said that 82 per cent. of people got their first choice. Of course they did if they were told that the local school was the only school available. But when it came to genuine parental choice, 700 parents replied within two days. It is interesting that letters came back asking for transfers from one secondary modern school to another, because of certain specialities in those schools.
I must not go further into the Tameside situation, except to say that I believe that the Conservative council has been as reasonable as it could be—it has certainly been more flexible than I should have been—in changing the system. If it is not successful in keeping its schools, having been elected on that mandate so recently, local democracy will suffer a defeat.
There is pressure from the power groups. This year it is the trade unions; next year it may be the employers; the year after that it may be another group. The hon. Member for Rossendale said that some people do not know the trade unions. My father was a trade union secretary and my grandfather was blackballed for setting up a union in the mills in Rossendale. I am sure that he would never have been in favour of closed shops. That is the issue on Tameside.
I think that the situation would have been made easier if teachers' contracts had been provisional until the schools opened. Most teachers worked in the area. Not many were brought in from outside. Most of them had new contracts and were guaranteed their jobs.
The new clause does not fire the anger of the Tameside situation one way or the other. Here is a triumph of decocracy which we should all cheer and possibly sing about. If there had been provisional contracts the situation might have been easier. I am glad that the Conservative council is fully pledged to fulfil the present contracts. At least 20,000 teachers were on safeguarded contracts after reorganisation. There is no difference between teachers in Tameside remaining on safeguarded contracts and others elsewhere doing so.

Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the speed with which we are galloping on, will you now tell us at what time we are likely

to get your second selection of amendments, which was promised at 6 o'clock?

Mr. Speaker: I have been working on that selection since the House saw me last. The list will be put up, although incomplete, in a short while. There will be enough to keep the House going for the time being.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having gone into the "No" Lobby, I found that there were no copies of your original list of selection. They seem to be very popular. I wonder whether you can arrange for further copies to be placed in the "No" Lobby.

Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to be able to say "Yes, certainly."

Mr. Martin Flannery: The imagination boggles, Mr. Speaker, at the task with which you have been confronted in selecting the new clauses and amendments. The Opposition have bombarded us with so many amendments that they have flung the printers and the House into considerable confusion, as was evidenced earlier. As there are so many amendments—

Mr. Cormack: Mr. Cormack rose—

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is an inveterate interrupter. It would be more helpful if he prepared a speech instead of interrupting. In view of the fact that there are so many amendments, Mr. Speaker, I shall speak briefly, and I hope that the Opposition will emulate my example.
Talking about confusion, I have the general impression that the Opposition's colleagues in Tameside seem to have flung education into some confusion there and that the Tories in general are acutely embarrassed by what their colleagues have done. In fact, the Press seems to have indicated that there was an all-out row between the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), and the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). I am sure that it is not true, but it is possible. The hon. Member for Brent, North underestimates his capacity.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford enmeshed his argumentation in such a web of verbiage that it was very difficult to understand the point of the new clause. We were told repeatedly in Committee by the hon. Member for Chelmsford and


his colleagues that they believed in comprehensive education. It was a very long Committee stage, as befits the most important Education Bill ever to come before this House. That is why it has been opposed so strongly by the Opposition. We were told in Committee that the Tories believed in comprehensive education. Over and over again, when baited in Committee by Members on the Government side, the hon. Member for Chelmsford said "We believe in comprehensive education."'

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I did not.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Member for Chelmsford repeatedly made that point.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish only to inquire whether the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is giving way.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman at this moment is not giving way. If the hon. Member for Chelmsford is to deny what he said in Committee—that the Tories now believe in comprehensive education—I shall give way.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I take that offer to give way unconditionally, without the proviso. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House, but the attitude of the official Opposition—although there are varieties of view within the party on this matter —is that we are in favour of a variety of schools and that we are in no way against comprehensive schools. What we are against is their imposition everywhere without regard to educational situations, financial resources or parental wishes.

Mr. Flannery: I deliberately put the Gentleman on the horns of a dilemma. Despite what he has just said, I say again that repeatedly he left us with the impression that the Conservative Party had now changed its attitude and was in favour of comprehensive education. If that is so, the Tories on Tameside seem to have reverted to the viewpoint to which the hon. Gentleman himself seems to have reverted since the Committee stage of the Bill. Surely the conduct of the Tories

on Tameside is worthy of examination in view of the embarrassment they have caused to the Opposition Front Bench.
6.15 p.m.
When the Tories are defeated on the question of the 11-plus—they are being defeated on it and will be increasingly defeated as the British people realise the value of comprehensive education—they try other methods. They become desperate and, therefore, they thrash around wildly. They try any method whatsoever, such as, for instance, the reintroduction of selection in places where it has ceased to operate.
The Bill is an attempt to democratise education. It is not doctrinaire, despite the accusation which has been made It is the Opposition, who fight against comprehensive education under any terms whatsoever, who are doctrinaire.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford said in his opening speech that education in our country had grown organically. But I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that within the framework of organic growth there are on occasion leaps forward, and that those leaps forward take place when a Bill on education is passed. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but they will laugh on the other side of their faces when the Bill is passed, as it will be, and their defeat is complete.
The hon. Gentleman said that the voluntary schools were the first on the scene. Many of us recall that the so-called public schools came very early. They were not public schools then and they are not now. They were charitable foundations and, like all charitable foundations, they have been taken over by the wealthy and the privileged, who will fight to the death to preserve them. They know that comprehensive education as it develops will bring into question those bastions of privilege, owned basically by the Conservative Party.
The hon. Gentleman said that the education of children should not be disturbed. As an ex-teacher and head teacher, I ask in all conscience whether there is any more dreadful disturbance for the education system than the 11-plus examination. Surely there is no greater disturbance in the system to any child than that examination. The 11-plus hangs like a cloud over children and parents.
The new clause talks about the contracts of teachers and says that they should be provisional. The word "provisional" these days has a certain connotation, and it is almost as wrecking as those other Provisionals.
What would this provisional contract mean for teachers? If a teacher had a contract which was provisional on the setting up of a building, it would throw the security of the teaching profession, the security of the parents and, therefore, the security of the whole education system into question. Everyone within the education system would be full of worry and fear that it would be disrupted, in precisely the same way as the Tame-side Tories are disrupting the education system there.
I think that centrally the Tories are acutely embarrassed by the conduct of their colleagues at Tameside, who are doing something against the wishes of the parents, against the wishes of the children and against the wishes of the entire educational set-up.
I have just been reading part of the discussions. Incidentally, when the plans were made the Labour Party was not in a majority in the education committee. However, do hon. Members know that out of 1,000 teachers with 1,000 contracts in that general area, 890 have got new contracts? Therefore, 890 lives were in question in terms of their security of tenure. That is the position of the Tameside Tories regarding the children taught by the 890 teachers, their security of tenure, and the parents who have bought school uniforms. Their security of tenure was all in question. That, for doctrinaire reasons, was the position into which the Tameside Tories, backed up by the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, who now want to push through this ridiculous new clause, pushed the people of Tameside.
I need say no more than that the clause should be thrown out for the disruptive and disturbing proposal that it is.

Mr. Cormack: The House has listened to an impassioned and, I suggest, very stupid speech. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends says "From a stupid headmaster". All I would say is that perhaps the electors' loss is the children's gain.
We are debating an unnecessary proposal, because the Bill is unnecessary. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) talked about the vast number of amendments on the Notice Paper and castigated the Opposition for tabling them. He talked about the new clause in vitriolic terms. However, there would be no need for any new clauses or amendments, and no need to have this debate and to detain the House, had not the Government adopted the most doctrinaire attitude towards education that we have ever seen.
The hon. Gentleman talked of the Bill being a great Education Bill. It is the worst disservice to education ever perpetrated by legislators anywhere.

Mr. Flannery: Bad for the elitists.

Mr. Cormack: It is bad for quality. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who wax eloquent about their defence of democracy do not defend democracy at all. Their attitude is a positive disservice to democracy. When they stand up, as did the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble), and talk as though they have the prerogative of right and compassion and the monopoly of wisdom, what sort of service to democracy are they performing? When they attempt to subvert the due processes of democracy—which is what this debate is all about—what sort of service to democracy are they performing?

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: We have just seen it.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend intervenes eloquently. We have indeed seen it. We have seen it in many guises in recent weeks, in relation to the aircraft and shipbuilding industry—but I must not disgress because Mr. Speaker might rule me out of order. However, what we have seen in this instance is a group of democratically-elected local representatives presenting a programme to the people and saying to them "We wish to retain the grammar schools in Tameside".

Mr. Noble: They did not.

Mr. Cormack: Oh, yes, they did. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that they did. That was one of the main planks in their platform. They went to the electorate and said "We do not like what is being done, and we are offering


you a constructive alternative". The electorate opted for the constructive alternative. The electorate returned to power a group of men and women who were dedicated to a particular policy. The hon. Member for Rossendale talked about the number of people who voted. I hope that all of us, in every part of the House, regret the low percentage turn-out at local government elections. Tameside was certainly not bottom of the list this year in the percentage of people who went to the polls—far from it. The percentage of people who voted in Tameside was infinitely greater than the percentage of people who take part in most union elections. One does not hear turn-outs for union elections castigated by those on Government Benches.
The Government are putting before the House of Commons and the people of Britain a highly contentious measure. They did not have the support of the majority of the people in Britain. They claim—it is a valid democratic claim in this regard—that more people voted for their policies than for any others and that, therefore, they have a right to promote the Bill. Therefore, let not the hon. Member for Rossendale and his hon. Friends pretend that we are being undemocratic or that the councillors and the electorate of Tameside are being undemocratic, because if they do that they will be guilty of a gross distortion of the facts.

Mr. Noble: I was previously replying to a claim made by one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues that a majority of parents in Tameside had expressed their wishes. That was not so. Even if more than half of the electorate had voted, and voted in favour, we would still not know, as the ballot was secret, whether a majority of parents had stated their wishes. I was simply replying to that point.

Mr. Cormack: I do not think that there is a qualitative franchise in this country and that one would have to say whether or not one was a parent, any more than there is such a thing in the House of Commons. Every person who voted in Tameside had a right to take part in the election. Most of the electors voted for a party which has a policy

that we are now discussing, which has provoked my hon. Friends into putting forward the new clause.
It is a great sadness to be in the House of Commons when people are accusing locally, democratically-elected councillors of being undemocratic for doing what they are doing.

Mr. Noble: Unreasonably.

Mr. Cormack: No, not unreasonably at all. It is far more unreasonable to say "You shall have a comprehensive school and no other school". It is far more unreasonable to take that line than to take the line that we take—that in diversity and variety there is richness and strength.
That is the line that we on the Conservative Benches have taken throughout. It has been the consistent policy of the Conservative Party. There have been Conservative authorities, including a former Conservative authority in my county, Staffordshire, which have proposed and implemented comprehensive schemes. Some of us may not altogether have agreed with or liked what they did, but they did it. We did not question their democratic credentials. Nor did we, as a party, say that every local authority should or should not take a particular line. That is what the Bill is all about, and that is why the new clause is of particular significance and importance.

Dr. Hampson: My hon. Friend might be interested in the fact that it was a Conservative-controlled West Riding authority which after 1945, under a Labour Minister, resisted a circular demanding a tripartite system and opted for a multilateral system, which in turn evolved into a middle system. This matter therefore relates to the freedom of local authorities to act against the diktats of the central Government, allowing experimentation and a flexibility that has been so productive.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am grateful for his intervention. It is a proper constructive regard for local circumstances that is absolutely basic to a good education system. Who can have that proper constructive regard for local circumstances better than people who live in the locality concerned? This mucking around with buildings and the artificial creation of


entities is a most terrible disservice to the education ideal and a disservice to quality.
The hon. Member for Rossendale was good enough to tell us where his children went to school. I do not blame him for having a daughter at a grammar school. Indeed, I congratulate him.

Mr. Noble: There was no choice.

Mr. Cormack: If the hon. Gentleman has a daughter at a grammar school and another child at a comprehensive school, presumably he could have opted for both of them to go to the comprehensive school. He has a choice, and I welcome it.

Mr. Noble: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present earlier. The point I made was that my daughter was the last in a selective intake, because there was no option then, and she is now attending a senior comprehensive high school.

Mr. Cormack: I should have thought that, as the other child was at a comprehensive school, there was probably an option. But it does not matter. Many Labour Members have had the privilege of sending their children to grammar schools. That is a very good thing.

Mr. Flannery: Did the hon. Gentleman take the 11-plus?

Mr. Cormack: Yes, indeed, and I was educated in the State system—and I have taught, just as the hon. Gentleman has done. If one looks through the list of worthy Cabinet Ministers and members of the present Government, one is surprised to see how many of them derived great benefit from the richness and diversity of our education system. I took the trouble today to look them all up. Perhaps at a later stage my colleagues might be interested in a breakdown of the educational background of all the members of the Government, because we have a long night ahead of us.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (Lichfield and Tam-worth): I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that two-thirds of his colleagues had the benefit of private education. One is therefore a little concerned about the competence with which they

manage to speak on matters of public education bearing in mind that they did not opt for the public system.

Mr. Cormack: What an entirely irrelevant and stupid intervention.

Mr. Flannery: It has upset the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cormack: It has not upset me at all. I happen to be in the one-third which is obviously entitled to wear the halo. But I really fail to see what relevance this has.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman fails to see the relevance of the very relevant contribution which my hon. Friend made. That is what I am saying.

Mr. Cormack: It is no wonder that the hon. Gentleman has an Irish name. It is a pity that the rules of the House—

Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman, whose constituency I forget, has referred to the fact that I have an Irish name. I must confess that I have, but I did not expect it to be referred to.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not everyone can have a Welsh name.

Mr. Cormack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure we all stand suitably rebuked and deeply envious.
To return to the main point of the debate—

Mr. Flannery: Withdraw.

Mr. Cormack: I cannot withdraw the hon. Gentleman's name, although he could do so by deed poll if he chose to do so.
We believe in quality, and we are attempting to salvage from this destructive and damaging Bill a few vestiges of quality. There would be no need for this new clause and this long night of debate had not the Government behaved with such doctrinaire intolerance. That is what this is all about. The Government have said to the people of the country, be they teachers, parents or children, "One form of secondary education you shall have and no other". But before the Bill has passed into law, and because one local authority has had the guts and the gumption to stand up for its rights and the rights of its electors, parents


and children, the Government are resisting an entirely sensible new clause.
If the Minister had said that he did not like the drafting and that he would like to take the clause away and improve upon it with the help of the parliamentary draftsmen, that would have been a constructive reply and the debate could have ended over an hour ago. But he did not say that. He pretended that we were the ones who were subverting democracy and attacking local authority freedom and undermining the rights and privileges of parents and teachers and all the rest. That is not the case.
The Bill is destructive and damaging. I hope that, as the night progresses, we shall fight it to the bitter end and that the Government will at least have the grace and the good sense to give proper Government time to debate it. To give one day to debate a measure like this on Report is the grossest insult to parliamentary democracy that I can imagine.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I was interested in some of the comments made from the Conservative Benches in regard to the new clause, because there is a lot of history on the subject of comprehensive education. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) referred to the right of the local education authority to determine policy. He made a particularly strong point about teachers not usurping the authority of the local education committee. That is absolutely right.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to that approach. I say "conversion" because I am reminded that he was a Minister in the Government of 1970 to 1974 in regard to education, and I am reminded of some of the statements he made during that period. I remember, sometimes with bitter experience, being involved as Chairman of the Liverpool Secondary Reorganisation Committee and Deputy-Chairman of the Liverpool Education Committee, coming to London on a deputation to make representations to the then Conservative Secretary of State, now Leader of the Conservative Opposition, in regard to Liverpool Education Committee's plans for comprehensive secondary reorganisation.
We were told then that, although the Labour Party was elected as the majority

party in the city council, it was not possible for it to claim that it had a a mandate to pursue a policy of comprehensive reorganisation. We were told that because there was a parents' protest committee in Liverpool—a background or "front" for the Conservative Party—and because of the existence of several thousands of signatures on petitions and anxiety among teachers, we could not claim that we had the right to pursue the policy upon which we were elected. However, we are now in a different situation.
Tameside has the right to carry out the policies it is pursuing because, miraculously, the position has changed. It has a mandate from the electorate. That reminds me of the arguments in which the Conservative Party has been involved witht two voices over a period in regard to the participation of teachers in reorganisation plans within local authorities. At one stage it was argued by Conservatives Members that the teachers must be heard. That was during a situation when quite a number of teachers' organisations in various parts of the country were raising doubts about the change to comprehensive schools. However, because of the passage of time, that is not now the case. The majority of teachers' organisations in most of the larger city areas are in favour of reorganisation on comprehensive lines. We do not hear any more clamour about seeking to hear the teachers on this particular subject.
I think it was the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) who made some mocking comments about participation. The one thing we are not seeking any longer is the participation of teachers in regard to the whole problem of comprehensive reorganisation. If we were interested in hearing the teachers, we would realise how absurd the new clause is. In most reorganisation schemes that local education authorities have, one of the things for which the teachers have argued forcibly is co-operation and collaboration between the teachers' unions and the education authorities in regard to the staffing of the schools which are to be set up under reorganisation.

Dr. Hampson: Dr. Hampson rose—

Mr. Thorne: When it comes to determining the appointment of headmasters


and deputy headmasters, heads of department and teachers, any local education authority worth its salt will set up a working party with the teachers' unions to discuss how the local teachers will get priority in the filling of posts. Naturally reorganisation is likely to bring shifts in specialisms and needs, and possibly, therefore, redundancy among teachers. The whole matter is therefore discussed by the LEA and the various teachers' organisations.

Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thorne: Therefore, there is absolutely no necessity for this kind of clause. On the contrary, it is absolutely necessary to establish the right sort of involvement in regard to putting into practice the policy of the Bill. The right sort of involvement is a continuous dialogue between the LEAs and the teachers' unions.

Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thorne: I shall not give way. For the last hour and a half, on this one clause, Tory Members have made all the points that they now seem to want to make in my speech. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you are anxious to see me finish this speech with no interruptions. Hon. Members opposite can make their own speeches. Some of them make abysmal speeches, but that is a matter for them. I am not prepared to hear any interruptions of my speech. The points of hon. Members opposite have been summed up already ad nauseam.
Following Tameside, the Tory Party is now anxious for us to accept that a local authority when elected has the right to carry out a policy irrespective of the teachers, the parents or the children, who will now be subjected to the same system of selection as they completely rejected 10 years ago, saying that LEAs which have been elected to bring in comprehensive education should tone down their activities, listen to parents, teachers and others and delay implementation of the system.
That is what the new clause and 100 other clauses and amendments are about. Even if we do not finish until 1.30 p.m. tomorrow, I hope that we shall reject

them all and get on with introducing real comprehensive education.

Mr. Angus Maude: During the few minutes for which I wish to detain the House, I shall try, unlike many hon. Members who have preceded me, to stick as far as possible to the new clause under discussion.
The debate has covered a wide area, with a number of hon. Members getting off their chests a number of ancient war cries and flaunting a few flags. The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), for example, would not permit my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) to correct him on a point of fact—a fairly typical method of behaviour. The hon. Member was talking about consultation. In the case of Tame-side, the Joint Four was perfectly willing to discuss and work out a solution and discussions took place, but the NUT, backed by NALGO, refused any form of discussion. It is therefore absurd to talk about consultation, participation and continuous dialogue with people who will not talk.
6.45 p.m.
The Secretary of State began by saying that the new clause was repugnant to him and his hon. Friends in principle and practice, and then he diverged a little to try to persuade us that it was in any case unnecessary because, he said, by the time Clause 4 was in operation the gap would have been closed and cases like Tameside would not arise again. We do not believe that that is so. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is at least an argument that it will not be so.
The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there will be elections next year for various local authorities which are local education authorities. He surely cannot say now that by the time the Bill has become law, when local authorities begin to submit proposals to him, every set of proposals will have been accepted and will be operative by the time of the next county council elections. He would be very unwise to say so.
Suppose that a local authority submits proposals to the Secretary of State. Without rejecting them out of hand, he comments on them and sends them back. It would be a strange Government Department which returned the proposals


within a week. Therefore, time will elapse. The right hon. Gentleman's comments have then to go through the whole procedure of an education committee and the full council and have to be returned to him. It is therefore possible—this is the hypothesis on which the new clause is based—that the Tameside situation could arise again next year in the local elections.

Mr. Mulley: This is a very important point. If the House will agree, it might be more convenient for me to reply when the hon. Gentleman has finished developing it.

Mr. Maude: If that is possible, even in theory, it is not logical to say that our new clause must be unnecessary and is not needed.
The new clause is needed if there is the slightest chance that the Tameside situation will arise again. Let us not lose sight of the fact of what actually happened on Tameside. We are not discussing whether comprehensive education is good or bad, whether one side or the other has a monopoly of virtue. I have noticed that Labour Members, as is so often the case when they discuss polemical politics, say that the Conservative Party, whether nationally or locally, is behaving in a doctrinaire fashion if it endeavours to ensure a variety of schools throughout the country and in each area but that the Labour Party is not behaving in a doctrinaire fashion if it seeks to impose one kind of school on every area. This selective use of the word "doctrinaire" reminds me of the bishop who said to one of his colleagues, "Orthodoxy, my Lord, is my doxy; heterodoxy is someone else's doxy".
The Labour Party uses the word "doctrinaire" in precisely that way. It is noticeable that when a Labour Government or a Labour council seek to reverse everything that a Conservative Government or a Conservative council have done, that is regarded as a perfectly logical, moral and undoctrinaire process. A Conservative Government or Conservative council are expected to swallow, absorb and continue to operate every Socialist measure of its predecessor. If that were to happen, there would be a continual trend to the Left until we were left with a totally Socialist society.
It must be recognised that in a democracy there will be times when each side will want either to reverse or to modify the actions, proposals and institutions set up by their predecessors. The Secretary of State waxed extraordinarily indignant on a high moral tone. He said that the new clause was repugnant to the freedom of the individual and to the freedom of contract. We find it repugnant to the spirit of democracy that a local authority faced with defeat should try to outwit the electorate and thwart the electorate's will. We propose to shut one door in the face of those who are trying to thwart the democratic will of the electorate in some areas. Some hon. Gentlemen find that strange and wicked.
Let us not forget the events at Tameside. A few days before the local government elections took place, the Labour-controlled council—clearly recognising that it was in danger of losing an election which the Conservatives fought on a policy of preserving the grammar schools in the area—sent out new contracts to teachers, involving, in some cases, upgrading their status and remuneration, to try to outflank the Conservative-controlled council which was about to succeed it and to prevent the Conservatives from carrying out the commitments on which they fought the election. With those events behind us, is it any wonder that we want to prevent that kind of blackmail—it was cheating, if not blackmail—taking place next year in the local government elections? That is the reason for the new clause.
In seeking to persuade us that we should not press the new clause to a Division, the Government spokesman who replies must persuade us that that situation cannot arise before the Secretary of State has succeeded in imposing his will on every council in the country. The new clause is justified if there is any risk of its happening. It may happen again next year, before all the proposals have been studied and approved. If that is so, on past form there is every likelihood that a Labour-controlled authority somewhere will try the same trick. While that possibility exists, the new clause is needed and we shall press it to a Division.

Mr. Leon Brittan: The Bill was described by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough


(Mr. Flannery) as a leap forward in a framework of organic growth. That is a strange concept. I do not think, if it is described in such graphic, if unliterary form, that it is likely to attract many members of the Opposition or the public. However, it raises questions—whether relating to leaps forward or leaps backward—which go well beyond education. Many people who will look with interest at the way in which Parliament determines the question on this new clause are concerned not primarily with education but with democracy and the way in which democratic procedures work in our country. The new clause is a means of protecting the exercise of democracy against the intrusion of fundamentally undemocratic procedures which are designed to impede the operation of the wish of the people expressed at a recent election.
In support of thwarting the will of the people we listened to some of the most specious and dubious constitutional doctrine that we have heard for a long time. I thought it little short of ludicrous —were it not tragic—that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) should say that there was justification for the obstruction of the policy of the newly elected Tameside council. He told the House solemnly—or with as much solemnity as he could muster for so ludicrous a point—that the election was fought on the issue of the green belt. Whether or not it was fought on that issue, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will win many black belts for intellectual judo, although he may well reach the heights in respect of the accolades that are available for tiresome gymnastics.

Dr. Hampson: The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) said time and again that if the Tories won in Tameside it would be as a result of the education policy they were putting to the electorate.

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assistance. That was apparent to the people concerned, even without the helpful confession to that effect by the hon. Member for Rossendale.
In Tameside we are faced with an example of a trend that I should have thought was worrying to the people concerned with matters well beyond educa-

tion. I refer to the tendency of bodies other than elected bodies to regard it as being their right to prevent the policy of an elected body being implemented. I regard that as a highly dangerous trend, to be resisted at all costs, whether the threat comes from a trade union, a group of teachers, an employers' organisation or a local crysanthemum society.
If democracy is to be preserved, we must remember what it is. An election takes place, and the party that wins the election is entitled to carry out the policies that led to its electoral success. If that party is wise—and if it wishes to win not just one election but future elections—it will adopt a reasonable posture, to seek consultations and to follow a policy that accords with its ideological propensities and takes account of the practicalities of the situation. Although the elected body fails to follow that wise course, it still surely has the constitutional right to put forward the policy for which it is elected without being impeded by outside bodies. That is why we object to what took place at Tameside.
Reference was made to trade unions and the trade union movement. I do not believe that those who seek to defend, on the part of those opposing the newly elected authority, what happened in Tameside, do a service to the trade union movement by involving it or referring to it in this argument. The rôle of the trade union movement, when it does its best for its members, is to engage in hard-fought negotiations—backed up, if we like, by the strike weapon—but not to seek to blackmail an elected body by the threat or exercise of industrial action against the wishes of the people expressed in an election. That is the central point, but there are several red herrings, to which I shall refer briefly.
7.0 p.m.
One red herring is that the authority is not obliged to carry out proposals that have been approved; there is the possibility that the proposals will lie on the stocks for a long time and there will be a gap. The Minister said that we need not deal with that by introducing the new clause, because it is covered by Clause 4.
Clause 4 imposes a duty on a local authority to implement the proposals


which have been approved by the Secretary of State, but no time limit is stated in the clause. All it provides is that if the local authority wilfully indicates that it has no intention of implementing the scheme that the Secretary of State has approved, the Secretary of State may take action either under Section 68 or through the courts to prevent that situation continuing. But there is no time limit.
If the local authority, for prudential, arguable and justifiable reasons, even after the passage of the Bill, delays implementing the Secretary of State's proposals, the Secretary of State can do nothing unless the local authority has wilfully indicated that it is not doing what he wants. After all the sittings of the Committee, the Secretary of State still has not got his Bill right, and it is no argument to say that Clause 4 deals with the problem.
The next red herring—an even redder and more tasty morsel than the one to which I have just referred—is the claim that the clause interferes with the freedom of contract, and that that is repugnant. Repugnant to what, we are not told. The word "repugnant" occurred twice in the Secretary of State's speech, but it was not related to any clear principle of law that even so uninitiated a lawyer as I have ever learnt.
From the most cursory glance at the clause it is apparent beyond misrepresentation that all that is said is that the contract will be provisional. There is no interference with the freedom of contract in saying that. Every teacher who enters into a contract on that basis knows what he is entering into.
There are thousands of ways in which contracts can be provisional. They can be stated to be provisional by agreement of the parties. They can be affected by frustration of contract under the 1943 Act. In a whole variety of ways the legislature has interfered, for good reasons or bad, in the concept of freedom of contract.
The Conservatives are accused of being an old-fashioned, traditional party. Perhaps we should be more traditional, but I hardly believe that we shall ever seek to emulate the love of tradition of the Secretary of State, who would drag us

back to a primitive, nineteenth-century view of the freedom of contract which even politicians of a far less radical hue than he felt should be mitigated from time to time in the light of modern conditions. Let us hear no more about freedom of contract. In any future reference to it, I suggest that there should be substituted the phrase "freedom of humbug".
The Secretary of State came to the moment of truth when he said that the Bill introduced a new relationship between Government and local authorities. There he is dead right, but he has done that at the expense of the welfare of the children on whose behalf he is charged statutorily to act, and at the risk of destroying democracy and the principle of the rule of law.

Mr. Mulley: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the arguments put forward, particularly by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) referred to a local chrysanthemum society which would have difficulty in arranging its affairs if it could make only provisional contracts that could be cancelled unilaterally by the other party. I realise the hon. Gentleman's distinguished legal background, but what seems to have escaped the notice of Opposition Members is that the clause seeks to impose on local education authorities and teachers a restriction that would prevent them, and them alone, from making binding contracts as to future conditions of employment. That is my reading of the clause. It would be wrong in any event to impose any such arrangements without consultation with all the trade unions concerned.
The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) referred to the views of the Joint Four in Tameside, but he did not go so far as to say that the Joint Four would approve of legislation of this character which provided only for provisional contracts which, in the circumstances here envisaged, could by a process of law be declared null and void, with consequential effects on the individual teachers concerned and on the filling of vacancies, with all the uncertainty that would cause throughout the educational system.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) said that perhaps I was a little hasty in advising the House to reject the clause. I certainly have not prejudged the Tameside situation. Perhaps I did jump to a conclusion on this new clause but no arguments have been put which persuade me to change my mind. The only way in which I might be able to achieve popularity with teachers would be if the clause were inserted in the Bill at the instance of the Conservative Opposition, because the teachers would be united in being totally opposed to it.
The most remarkable comment I have ever heard in the House was made by the hon. Member for Brent, North. He said that he had been at Wembley Stadium watching Manchester United and that other people were present. That he could conceive of Manchester United playing at Wembley for his sole personal gratification shows an imagination which will no doubt lead people in the North to discount some of his other colourful utterances.
Nothing that has been said in the debate has persuaded me to change my mind.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. On the question of provisional or conditional contract, can he say what is wrong in principle with saying "If we build this school we will give you a job in it, but if we do not build this school we are unable to give you a job in it"? That is precisely the point behind the clause.

Mr. Mulley: I was coming to that point, raised by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, in connection with Clause 4. There is nothing in the law of the land as it stands at present to prevent such authorities and teachers as wish to do so from making provisional contracts, just as in the ordinary way of business one makes provisional arrangements. If it is freely agreed by both sides that it should be provisional, there is no harm in it and we do not need the new clause. It would prevent authorities and teachers from making binding arrangements in these circumstances.
With great respect to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, the point of Clause

4 is not what inevitably it will mean next year, when further elections are held—and I might say that the metropolitan borough of Tameside, prior to the Labour council seeking Section 13 approval for its comprehensive proposals, was elected on a similar commitment and a similar manifesto. Next year in the counties there will be further elections. Under Clause 4, where a scheme has actually been approved there will be a duty to carry it through. In that sense, while the Bill, when it has become law, remains the law of the land, there will be a duty on the authority, and in that sense there will not be the difficulty which arises in present circumstances.
Surely no authority, having put forward plans, would advertise posts for headmasters or specialist teachers or whatever else in a school which was to be built or reorganised until it had Section 13 approval. To do so would be irresponsible. Only after it had that approval could an authority make contracts of that kind. If Clause 4 goes through, as I hope, it would in those circumstances place a duty on the authority properly to carry out and implement Section 13.

Mr. Maude: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I do not think he has yet made good his point that the operation of Clause 4 could prevent a situation such as took place at Tameside happening in another local authority before the operation of the Bill has become universal. There must be a time lag while proposals are being considered, and it may very well be that another local authority, fearing to lose control, might take precisely the same steps as Tameside just before an election.

Mr. Mulley: I appreciate that until the Bill becomes law the situation in Tameside could recur, but unless the Bill becomes law, even if the new clause were to be included, the new clause is a nullity.
We had a surprising revelation from the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack)—a statement of the obvious which could not be denied —that if we had no Bill before us there would be no amendments. That we do not dispute. Equally, unless the Bill becomes law, any amendments or new clauses that are added to it will not become law either. Therefore, if Clause


4 were enacted it would make the new clause otiose. If we were to put in the new clause, it would make me popular with teachers but it would not be necessary if, as I hope and believe, the Bill becomes law. I hope, therefore, that the

House will proceed to decide this matter, and then we may make more progress.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 311.

Division No. 167.]
AYES
[7.14 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Loveridge, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Forman, Nigel
Luce, Richard


Alison, Michael
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, Robert


Arnold, Tom
Fry, Peter
Macfarlane, Neil


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacGregor, John


Awdry, Daniel
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Baker, Kenneth
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Banks, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McNair-Wilson, p. (New Forest)


Bell, Ronald
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Madel, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Goodhart, Phillp
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil


Benyon, W.
Goodlad, Alastair
Mates, Michael


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gorst, John
Mather, Carol


Biffen, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maude, Angus


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mawby, Ray


Body, Richard
Gray, Hamish
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grieve, Percy
Mayhew, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hall, Sir John
Miscampbell, Norman


Brittan, Leon
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger


Brotherton, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Hector


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hannam, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Bryan, Sir Paul
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morgan, Geraint


Buck, Antony
Hastings, Stephen
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Budgen, Nick
Havers, Sir Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hawkina, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Burden, F. A.
Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mudd, David


Carlisle, Mark
Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Airey


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Channon, Paul
Higgins, Terence L.
Neubert, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Philip
Newton, Tony


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hordern, Peter
Normanton, Tom


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nott, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley


Clegg, Walter
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Cockcroft, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Osborn, John


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow West)


Cope, John
Hurd, Douglas
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Cordle, John H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil


Cormack, Patrick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Percival, Ian


Critchley, Julian
Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Jopling, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Drayson, Burnaby
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Durant, Tony
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Dykes, Hugh
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kirk, Sir Peter
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Elliott, Sir William
Kitson, Sir Timorthy
Ridsdale, Julian


Emery, Peter
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rifkind, Malcolm


Eyre, Reginald
Knox, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff MW)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lane, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Farr, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fell, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lawsen, Nigel
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Ian
Sainsbury, Tim




St. John-Stevas, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor
Viggers, Peter


Scott, Nicholas
Stanley, John
Wakeham, John


Scott-Hopkins, James
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Stokes, John
Wall, Patrick


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Storehouse, Rt Hon John
Walters, Dennis


Shepherd, Colin
Stradling, Thomas J.
Warren, Kenneth


Shersby, Michael
Tapsell, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Silvester, Fred
Teylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wells, John


Sims, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Sinclair, Sir George
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, T. H. H.
Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Speed, Keith
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Spence, John
Townsend, Cyril D.
Younger, Hon George


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Trotter, Neville



Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Tugendhat, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sproat, Iain
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. John Corrie.


Stainton, Keith
Vaughan, Dr Gerard





NOES


Abse, Leo
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Howella, Geraint (Cardigan)


Allaun, Frank
Deakins, Eric
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Anderson, Donald
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Huckfield, Les


Archer, Peter
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Ashley, Jack
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Ashton, Joe
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Roy (Nwport)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dormand, J. D.
Hunter, Adam


Atkinson, Norman
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dunn, James A.
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dunnett, Jack
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Bates, Alf
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Janner, Greville


Bean, R. E.
Eadie, Alex
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Beith, A. J.
Edge, Geoff
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
John, Brynmor


Bishop, E. S.
English, Michael
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ennals, David
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Boardman, H.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Evans John (Newton)
Judd, Frank


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kaufman, Gerald


Bradley, Tom
Faulds, Andrew
Kelley, Richard


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kerr, Russell


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Flannery, Martin
Kinnock, Neil


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lambie, David


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamborn, Harry


Buchanan, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lamond, James


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ford, Ben
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Campbell, Ian
Forrester, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Canavan, Dennis
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lee, John


Cant, R. B.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Carmichael, Neil
Freeson, Reginald
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Carter, Ray
Freud, Clement
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lewis, Ron (Carllsle)


Cartwright, John
George, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Gilbert, Dr John
Litterick, Tom


Clemitson, Ivor
Ginsburg, David
Loyden, Eddie


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Golding, John
Luard, Evan


Cohen, Stanley
Gould, Bryan
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Coleman, Donald
Gourlay, Harry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McCartney, Hugh


Concannon, J. D.
Grant, John (Islington C)
McElhone, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Crimond, Rt Hon J.
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Grocott, Bruce
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Corbett, Robin
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mackintosh, John P.


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Hardy, Peter
Maclennan, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Harper, Joseph
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Cronin, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, Kevin


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Madden, Max


Cryer, Bob
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Magee, Bryan


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hatton, Frank
Mahon, Simon


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Dalyell, Tam
Heffer, Eric S.
Marks, Kenneth


Davidson, Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Marquand, David


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hooson, Emlyn
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Horam, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies Ifor (Gower)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Mason, Rt Hon Roy







Maynard, Miss Joan
Richardson, Miss Jo
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Meacher, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tierney, Sydney


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tinn, James


Mendelson, John
Robinson, Geoffrey
Tomlinson, John


Mikardo, Ian
Roderick, Caerwyn
Tomney, Frank


Millan, Bruce
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Torney, Tom


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tuck, Raphael


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Rooker, J. W.
Urwin, T. W.


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Roper, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Molloy, William
Rose, Paul B.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Moonman, Eric
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rowlands, Ted
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Sandelson, Neville
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Moyle, Roland
Sedgemore, Brian
Ward, Michael


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Selby, Harry
Watkins, David


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Watkinson, John


Newens, Stanley
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Weetch, Ken


Noble, Mike
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Weitzman, David


Oakes, Gordon
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Wellbeloved, James


Ogden, Eric
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
White, James (Pollok)


Orbach, Maurice
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitehead, Phillip


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Silverman, Julius
Whillock, William


Ovenden, John
Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd


Owen, Dr David
Small, William
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Padley, Walter
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Palmer, Arthur
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Park, George
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Parker, John
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Sir Thomas


Parry, Robert
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Pavitt, Laurie
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Stoddart, David
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Pendry, Tom
stott, Roger
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Penhaligon, David
Strang, Gavin
Woodall, Alec


Perry, Ernest
Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.
Woof, Robert


Phipps, Dr Colin
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Prescott, John
Swain, Thomas
Young, David (Bolton E)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. Ted Graham and Mr. Peter Snape.


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)



Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

STANDARDS OF LITERACY AND NUMERACY TO BE ACHIEVED BY PUPILS

'(1) The Secretary of State shall establish national minimum standards of literacy and numeracy to be attained by all pupils who have reached the age of ten years and six months, or at an age to be determined by the Secretary of State, and local authorities are required to establish a system of testing pupils who have attained the age of ten years and six months as soon as may be after the attainment of that age, such tests to include an assessment of the standard of literacy and numeracy achieved by the pupil in order to establish the child's future educational requirements.

(2) Where a pupil's attainment in literacy and numeracy at that age specified is found to be below the minimum national standards established by the Secretary of State under this section, the local authority shall be required to provide immediate remedial education, and transfer to secondary school, or to the senior school in a middle school system, may be delayed for up to one year as may be deemed necessary in order to raise the standard of attainment in literacy and numeracy for that

child to the minimum national standard prior to entry'.—[Dr. Boyson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.30 p.m.

Dr. Boyson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This clause follows on remarks made at Question Time today relating to the basic standards of literacy and numeracy, on which there were comments from both sides of the House. The clause would bring in, through the Secretary of State, an examination involving a minimum standard test at the age of 10 years and six months for all children and would afterwards make provision for those who did not attain the minimum hurdle at that time.
It is important to say that this is not a new 11-plus test, which was a selective test and became unpopular because of the very fact that it was selective. This is a minimum hurdle, which all children without brain damage and who are well taught and have attended school regularly should attain by the age of 10 years and six months. If they do not attain it by that


age they will be severely handicapped when they go on to secondary school. One can almost say that they will be unable to fulfil the requirements for secondary school education.
When the first move was made for State education between 1870 and 1876, it was presumed in evidence to the Newcastle Commission that minimum standards would be in force in all schools, so that it would not matter which school a child attended. When people use as a credit the difference in methods, approach, and achievement between schools it makes it more essential that, however different schools are in approach and method, they should all fulfil a minimum requirement of basic education. It is immoral and against all the feelings of those who brought in State education, to compel compulsory attendance without any guarantee of minimum standards, irrespective of the school that the child is attending. The indignation felt by many parents at the moment comes from the fact that children are often directed to neighbourhood primary and secondary schools whose standards are low, and they know that later their children's opportunities will be lessened because of the deprivation of those schools.
The test that we are proposing is not just another 11-plus test, with a starred honours board on the wall; it means that pupils and schools who do not attain these minimum standards will be picked out. If schools are doing badly year after year, with a low achievement rate, something should be done about them. Only two years ago the Labour Party said, in a Green Paper, that something would have to be done about the schools in which children were consistently under-achieving, compared with other schools.
We see and hear a lot about falling standards in our schools today; indeed, the Bennett Report itself refers to the fact that standards in many schools are such that hon. Members would not want to send their children to those schools. Yet they are State schools, for which local authorities and ultimately the Government in some way are responsible.
We read that between 1964 and 1972 there was a falling-off in literacy among children who were tested. This falling off was about three and a half months in reading ability at the age of 11. Similar findings came from the Horton

Report, in Wales, and even the Bullock Report. Sometimes the Bullock Report reads like a Chinese Maoist book. I am only a simple layman but as far as I can decipher what it means I believe that it says that children are not doing as well as they did before.

Mr. Freud: I am concerned about the hon. Member calling himself "a simple layman". If that is what he is, what are the rest of us?

Dr. Boyson: My description of the Liberal Party would have to be different from that which I apply to the rest of the House. I shall not go into that now. But we are simple laymen; we are not psychological testers. Even after long experience in education, I still regard myself as a simple layman. We find that more and more people, when talking about education, talk in terms that we do not understand. The Bullock Committee attained this achievement in as short a time as anyone. But I am not concerned about them; I am concerned about what the children of ordinary parents achieve in schools, and that should be the concern of every hon. Member.
One might ask why we need these tests. In one sense the end of the 11-plus as a selective examination meant its end as an achievement examination. I refer here to the Bennett Report, which states that
The presence of a selective examination at the age of 11 is related to superior progress, particularly in reading, and most noticeably in informal classrooms.
We treated the 11-plus examination like the plague, but although it may not have achieved an ideal selection it did lead to higher standards in informal schools. That is one of the few straight statements in the Bennett Report, and it is difficult to misinterpret it. Some people might not agree with it, but they could not misinterpret it. The end of the 11-plus examination does mean increased teacher freedom and freedom for heads to change their schools. But parents want stability in schools that their children are attending, and the disappearance of that test means a decline in standards.
One often wonders what is being done by the large numbers of local inspectors and Government inspectors. Are they going into schools to see what is happening? Are they carrying out the normal tests? We had a report that said that


local education authority inspectors spent only 5 per cent. of their time inspecting. If that is so, why call them inspectors? Why not call them by the name that is most appropriate to what they spend 95 per cent. of their time doing? We are Members of Parliament, and we certainly spend more than 5 per cent. of our time here. We often think, and our wives think, that we spend too much time here. I suggest that the Inspectorate should be called an Inspectorate only when it returns to inspecting schools and making sure there are proper achievements within them.
There is a disagreement about formal and informal teaching methods. My view on this matter is that a brilliant teacher can teach a child by any method, but a poor teacher would have a riot with a dead rabbit. About 80 per cent. of teachers achieve good standards within a formal framework, but there has been a breakdown in that framework. If teachers teach in the way in which they believe and most enjoy, they are most likely to achieve results in the classroom, irrespective of the label that we put on the school structure. It is nothing to do with the age of the building or even the pupil/teacher ratio.
This new clause is very important. It points the way to developments that should come. There is a test at 10 years and six months. Instead of writing off children who do not pass, which is what is happening now, something has to be achieved. If these children are fortunate they go to a school that is prepared to do something about them, but we cannot have children in non-streamed schools who are not up to normal reading and numerical standards at the age of 11. They will become bloody-minded and delinquent as they get left behind. Many of our problems arise from the fact that children are moved up automatically, irrespective of the standards that they achieve.
We heard a lot about Tameside today on an earlier amendment, but in London, at one time, between one-quarter and one-third of the children transferring at 11 in divisions north of the river had to be given some form of remedial treatment before starting a normal secondary course. At Highbury Grove School, of which I have

some knowledge, 85 of the 240 children who came were put in the remedial department for treatment for a year or longer, before they could cope with normal work and manage the normal secondary school curriculum. They are the ones we should be worrying about and passing Acts of Parliament to help. They are the problem. We should be concerned not with the organisation of schools but with the teaching in the classroom, the lack of achievement, and also with the satisfaction at the lack of achievement that exists in many of our cities with these kind of children.
We can look back to former times and talk about the Industrial Revolution, which is so beloved of Left-wing agitators. They forget, of course, that it was the Industrial Revolution that put an end to chimney boys. Children who pass on to secondary schools and who cannot read and write are every bit the equal of the chimney boys of the nineteenth century. They suffer from what Jenks calls "intellectual poverty"—an inability to fit in with other children. It is that which adds to problems later in their lives, when we have difficulties over welfare, delinquency, and so on.
Something must be done about these children. They could be transferred to schools with special remedial departments, but whatever is done, before they move on to ordinary secondary schools they must be brought up to the level of other children. It is no good Labour Members saying that these children are not left to sink, because many of them are. In some foreign countries and in some parts of this country there used to be special summer courses for children who were not up to standard at the age of 11. They had to reach that standard before they could enter secondary school. Crash courses were organised for two weeks in the summer, with teachers given extra money to do the job. It is true that education is short of money at present, but no money could be better spent than on ensuring that at the end of the summer these children could be moved into secondary schools with the appropriate standards of numeracy and literacy.
This test at the age of 10½ is not simply another form of the 11-plus; it is an alarm bell, to show that something is wrong with some children and, in some cases, with certain schools. There is


nothing party political in the suggestion, because all parties believe in some form of accountability in schools—some method of testing what has been achieved. This proposal would not merely test what had been achieved; it would ensure that children were brought up to the correct standard.
This is not a high hurdle; it is something that all children with an IQ of 70 who are not educationally subnormal and are without brain damage could achieve by the age of 10½, given regular school attendance and minimal home support. It would show that the children were able to move to a secondary school not only because of their age but because they had achieved an adequate standard of literacy and numeracy.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) has made an interesting contribution to the debate. The clause, however, is based on two faulty assumptions. The first, which the hon. Member hardly discussed, is that suitable tests which can be used in the way he suggests are agreed to exist. The second faulty assumption is not just that suitable methods exist for making national assessments but that their results should be applied in the way he proposes.
The hon. Member referred to the Bullock Report. That report suggested that we need criteria for defining literacy and new monitoring arrangements. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set up the assessment of performance unit. It will promote the development of suitable tests for both literacy and numeracy. The first part of the clause is therefore somewhat defective in assuming that tests have already been developed.
I do not suggest, of course, that the Department is opposed to the establishment of adequate standards in schools. My right hon. Friend has made very plain, particularly over the past few weeks and in the setting up of the unit, that he is extremely concerned that adequate standards of education should be provided in all our schools. Where we disagree with the Conservatives is in the best way of seeking to obtain those standards.
The most interesting question about the clause is whether it implies sonic kind of new 11-plus examination. There is a fascinating schizophrenia on the Conservative side in this matter. The Conservatives assure us that their party is not in favour of the 11-plus and that it recognises all the difficulties inherent in it, yet whenever they embark upon a discussion of this kind they cannot refrain from describing how admirable was the 11-plus and what good results it produced.
7.45 p.m.
The hon. Member produced a classic example of that when he quoted a section of the Bennett Report which refers to the progress of pupils in informal classes in a system where the 11-plus operated. But that applied only to three classes, which was not a particularly large sample from which to draw a conclusion, even if one accepts the straightforward proposition that the 11-plus contributed to higher standards of education, without examining other relevant factors. Those other factors are whether the children were practised in doing tests and whether the tests chosen gave an automatic preference to those children. Even if one accepted that proposition, three classes are not much of a sample from which to draw a conclusion.

Dr. Boyson: I regret it if my bringing in informal education confused the issue. The message of the Bennett Report is that classes of any type which employed the 11-plus had higher standards than those which did not. In considering informal education, it is worth noting that the best informal teacher in the report had her own child in the class preparing to sit an examination that year.

Miss Jackson: I made the point about the number of informal classes without accepting in any way the hon. Member's assumption that children in a class which operates the 11-plus perform better. Regard must be paid to the kind of tests involved. However, these are issues which are being carefully examined in the Department, and we are not leaping to any conclusions.

Mr. Cormack: Would it not have been better to await the results of that examination before producing the Bill?

Miss Jackson: No. This sort of research is carried out over a considerable period of years and we could not simply wait for the results of a particular research project.
I do not wish to discuss the general merits of the 11-plus since the hon. Member for Brent, North assured us that it is not linked with the intentions of the new clause. He says that the clause relates to establishing some kind of national minimum standards. If one accepts that, one still faces the assumption that the only thing that was objectionable about the 11-plus was that it was part of a selective system and that there were not other aspects of the examination which caused it to become unpopular with parents, teachers and children—factors which led the Conservative Party to dissociate itself from that examination.
Even if one accepted the case which has been made, the results of the kind of assessment that is proposed are likely to be just as bad. The results would be used just as rigidly to classify children as were the results of the 11-plus. The hon. Member for Brent, North is suggesting that children who fail the test should stay for a further full year in primary school. But what would happen to children who were borderline cases? What would happen to children who could be brought up to standard in a few weeks or months? Should they be compelled to stay at primary school for a further full year? If we accept that they should not do that, they would be moved to the secondary school at a time when their fellow pupils had already had some secondary education. Would they then be moved into the same class, where they would be already behind in a different way, or would they be confined to some form of remedial class?
The hon. Gentleman has not thought through his case, nor has he examined what the effect would be on children when they eventually reach secondary school. He assumed that the test would be set at a level that any child would be able to pass. He has not considered who would decide when a child was ready for secondary school.
I am concerned about what would happen to a child at the end of a year of remedial training in primary school. If the child still failed to meet the standard for secondary school, would that child

stay on in primary school for a further period of remedial education? If ever a recipe was devised for perpetuating second-class education, this is it.
One of the most difficult and abhorrent aspects of the proposal is the implication, intended or otherwise, that remedial education is suitably applied in primary school with the automatic stigma of separation from peers and education with younger children.
The hon. Member for Brent, North spoke of the difficulties that many such children have in living in society. I do not accept that their difficulties in fitting in would be any less if they were kept down a year in a primary school when children of their own age were moving into secondary school. Efforts should be made at secondary school to help such children. Many Opposition Members believe that children who require any kind of remedial help should receive it in a separate environment, preferably in a separate school, but that view is not shared on this side of the House and in the education world generally. We feel that children will do better generally if they are kept with their peers and contemporaries, receiving part-time help to assist them to keep up. That is the fundamental difference of approach between the two sides.
Of all the proposals along these lines, I find that those in the clause are the most damaging and the least helpful to the children concerned. We share the anxiety about and concern for standards, but we do not share the view that such classes will benefit the children who, I accept, the hon. Gentleman wishes to help.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Lady has referred to the problems of a young person who moves to secondary school a year late because he has been retained in junior school to do a year's remedial work. Will she tell the House what problems she thinks might result to that child if he went to secondary school unable to read or write properly? How could such a child go through secondary school without reading or writing properly? What would be the problems for the child when he left school?

Miss Jackson: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) cannot have


listened to what I said. I accept that there will be problems of adjustment for children who find it difficult to cope with secondary school work. We differ from the Opposition in our approach. Is it better to keep a child in primary school segregated from his friends because he is staying on another year and receiving remedial education, or is it better to give that child special help at secondary school? The hon. Gentleman is talking about children who need or receive a further full year in primary school. A child who did not need to stay down for a whole year would experience problems. There is a difference of approach which is to some extent based on the same concern, but I call on the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Freud: I have considerable respect for the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). He is an original thinker on these matters. But the new clause does not take us away from the basic evils of the 11-plus, although I accept that it involves a different type of examination which is taken at 10½ years of age. It involves not so much selection but rejection or black-balling.
The new clause provides that children who fail in literacy and numeracy will be subjected to the same pressures that we all objected to in the 11-plus, and the borderline cases will be subjected to the same coercion, bribes and rewards as were involved in the 11-plus.

Mr. Cormack: Why does the hon. Member have to adopt that patronising approach to other people's children? When his own children passed the common entrance examination, he was pleased enough that they could go to Westminster.

Mr. Freud: We are not talking about an entrance examination or private education. We are discussing a new clause which proposes a new age for a new examination which does not escape the evils of the 11-plus. The new clause seeks to formalise normality and pinpoint abnormality. That is why I am against it. Why do we need such a test? A child is an ongoing, living thing and there is no cut-off point. If a child needs help, it should be given from the day he goes to school—in fact, from the day he is born—until he no longer needs that help.
What I am against in the new clause, however, is the idea that at the age of 10½ one goes into a remedial process machine to come out soon afterwards ready to join the other children.
Anyone who argues about literacy and numeracy, looking at the Notice Paper and seeing that there are 95 new clauses and 158 amendments, that it is now 8 o'clock and that we are on only the second new clause, has every right to say that perhaps my numeracy should be examined. What I do not agree with is that it should be done at 10½ in one swoosh. That is why I shall certainly not vote for the new clause.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I must declare a concern. I was for 13 years a teacher in London comprehensive schools. I believe that some of the concerns of Opposition Members do not have a realistic basis.
I found the speech and the ideas of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) comparable with those of dear old Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I, and many of my colleagues who are now in schools, believe that he is often half right but that the other half is very badly wrong. There was the usual mixture in his speech.
Where the hon. Gentleman is right is in saying that in the past few years there has, perhaps, not been sufficient attention in primary and secondary schools to the internal monitoring of basic educational attainments. I make a distinction between attainment and potential and the assumptions one makes about the future. The Conservative Party has assumed that attainment at a certain age is a reasonable premise for prognosis of future ability which it is not.

Mr. John Stokes: As the party of private enterprise we all know that some can go to public school, university and business school and others can start on a barrow and hardly sign their name, yet still be highly successful.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has given away his case. Such a person may be highly successful in terms of competitive enterprise, but can he succeed if he has a talent to contribute cooperatively? That is just as important.

Mr. Stokes: Verbiage.

Mr. Spearing: It may be verbiage to the hon. Gentleman. I am not surprised, because he perhaps does not know the meaning of co-operation in society.

Mr. Stokes: I have been in personnel work for 30 years.

Mr. Spearing: If so, I hate to think of the staff relations the hon. Gentleman has left behind.

Mr. Stokes: Withdraw.

Mr. Spearing: I shall not follow up what the hon. Gentleman said, because I do not know the results of his efforts.

Mr. Stokes: The hon. Gentleman knows nothing about anything.

Mr. Spearing: If the hon. Gentleman's delicacy of touch and diplomacy in his occupation are as he is now displaying them here, I am not sure that he will be very successful.
The hon. Member for Brent, North talked about teaching methods in the formal framework. There may well be some agreement about that across the Floor. There have, perhaps, been too many winds of educational fashion in the last 10 or 15 years.

Mr. Stokes: Hot air.

Mr. Spearing: As a teacher, I have always said that one must advance in an island of formality, and then one may be able to reach any position of informality, once the pupils are ready, but one cannot impose ready-made systems, whether from inspectors, colleges of education or the Department.
On the whole we have ignored the question of standards. I remember pressing the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) two or three years ago to instigate an inquiry into the standards of those leaving school, not having taken public examinations. It took a long time for her and the Department to get round to that. I knew, as did many teachers, that many pupils who did not take GCE or CSE in secondary schools were having a difficult time. That was largely the responsibility of the attitude of Conservative Members.
I think that the Opposition would like to think twice about the attitude revealed

by the clause, because of its implications. First, who is to decide what the standard is? Is it to be the local education authority, the head of the school, or the head of the secondary school? If the hon. Gentleman's logic is followed, it will before the head of the secondary school to say what standard he will accept. I do not think that even the Opposition would stand for that. If it is to be a Minister in the Department, it becomes a political issue. I do not think that it should become a political issue, even if it were agreed to be a professional issue.

Dr. Boyson: They will have to be national standards. If they are to be accepted and if people are to know what they are, the Secretary of State will have to be responsible for them, but he does not need to apply them himself. He is responsible for many activities which he is not directing all the time, just as many other Ministers are. There must be a national way of setting this up, and then we can take it from there.

Mr. Spearing: That sounds very fine, but the Minister is responsible in many ways for qualitative matters. The Education Act is full of words such as "sufficient" and "adequate". We can argue about what they mean. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are asking in the clause for something which is quantitative. One cannot say that the Secretary of State is responsible generally but that somebody else lays down the level. That is not a practical solution.
Even if it were practical, let us look at the educational results. It would mean that in any primary school there would be some pupils who would not go with their peer groups, their friends, their cousins and others. They would have to stay down for a whole year in the primary school.

Mr. Cormack: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Spearing: The result for children in an ordinary primary school could be catastrophic for the rest of their lives. I ask Conservative Members to cast their minds back. They seem not to realise the effect on children of having to stay at the same school with a group a year younger when they have seen all their


friends go on. The damage to the self-esteem and progress of the children would be very great.

Mr. Cormack: This is pseudo-psychological claptrap. Cannot the hon. Gentleman think of the catastrophic damage if the child does not attain certain standards and becomes an adult illiterate?

Mr. Spearing: I shall come to that. The hon. Gentleman has misjudged the logic. That is not the alternative, which is something much more constructive. With his Jekyll side, the hon. Member for Brent, North saw the secondary school as process as a conveyor belt. This attitude was that one did not put the product on the conveyor belt until it was ready baked. The idea of a comprehensive school is that it comprehends sufficient educational skills and offerings to produce in various ways that which fits the unique needs of every pupil within its walls. This is done irrespective of age, and there will be a proper environment to take pupils up to the standard we would wish.
I was a tutor in a comprehensive school for 12 years and I had in my personal charge some pupils who went to university and others who left school almost illiterate. Hon. Members opposite may ask whether I had done my job properly, when children left school barely able to read and write, but in the cases which I recall pupils were taught to read in term time and forgot in the holidays. Perhaps hon. Members opposite have not come across that sort of situation. In the schools in which I worked I hope we had enough facilities to meet the needs of literacy, numeracy, manipulation and social needs, but even pupils who left with only a rudimentary knowledge of reading and writing left as reasonably rounded persons with a reasonable basis on which to pursue a reasonable life.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: At the outset of his speech the hon. Member indicated that he recognised the general decline in standards in primary and secondary education. What remedial course of action would he suggest if he does not approve of the new clause?

Mr. Spearing: I think the hon. Member is putting words in my mouth. I did not say there had been a decline in standards. We can look at Hansard

tomorrow, but I was saying that there had been a decline in the way in which we monitored the system. I refute the claim that standards have gone down. What has gone down is the way in which we internally monitor the attainments of pupils at any one age. I shall not give way again. I have given way enough and we should make progress.
During the 13 years I taught in secondary schools, 12 years at one school and one year at another, a matter of particular concern was trying to provide for ordinary pupils who were not taking the public examinations. Our task was made very difficult because of the attitude of the Opposition and their like. Before 1944 secondary education was linked in the public mind to grammar schools and certain public schools which were highly selective in character. It was not geared to the general needs of most children.
Since comprehensive schools started there has been an inbuilt, conservative approach on how secondary education should be organised. We have never developed a proper British rationale for secondary education. We have tried the pre-1944 system, which was a different system for a different age and different purposes.
8.15 p.m.
When Lord Boyle, well beloved or otherwise by hon. Members opposite, was Minister of Education he introduced the infamous Boyle's law and tried to increase the range of pay for teachers on the basis that the better teachers should get more. He broke the agreement between the NUT and the Burnham Committee in order to increase the grants to some teachers. Teachers taking exam classes were supposed to be superior and those with letters after their names got higher salaries. What happened to the ordinary pupils who were not taking the exams? The allowances went to exams and as the musical chairs developed and staff turnovers increased, the ordinary pupils lost out. This is one of the reasons we have not had from secondary schools the results we should have liked.
We have never developed a proper secondary rationale because there has been an assumption that we have a conveyor belt on the lines indicated by the hon. Member for Brent, North and based on a pre-1944 situation. We need to get away from that. We need to develop in


secondary comprehensive schools skills and competencies to enable pupils to arrive at the attainments we would like them to achieve, and we need machinery and techniques designed for the job, and not those carried on as a result of pre-1944 practices.

Mr. Stokes: I start by declaring two interests. I started my life as a schoolmaster for a happy year before the war and for 30 years since the war I have been in personnel and training work in industry and commerce.
One of the errors that have been made in discussing the new clause and education generally is the assumption that education is everything in life. It is enormously important, but if one observes life, one finds that character, personality, imagination, courage, ability to get on with other people, and other personal qualities are as important as, if not more important than, purely intellectual gifts.
It is important that our education system should be as sound as possible. I regret that there has been a diffidence —almost a conspiracy of silence—from the few speakers on the Government side about the grave decline in the standards of literacy and numeracy that have occurred in this nation over the last generation. One has only to ask employers, schoolmasters, or anyone who comes into contact with people to find out that many men and women cannot read or write well.
I find that people who apply for jobs cannot spell or express themselves clearly. There are frequent crossings-out in their letters. If I made a crossing-out in a letter when I was younger, I started all over again.
One hears of scientists and engineers who do not have the command of English that is essential in their jobs, especially if they wish to be supervisors or managers. We find sales people who are not able to speak even one foreign language. What a contrast that is to our competitors in Europe. The pronunciation of even common English words on radio and television is often quite appalling. It is strongly advisable for the parents of young children to keep them away from the box. They will not hear words pronounced properly.
Bad spelling and punctuation are all too common. Knowledge of the liberal arts and general subjects—for example, religion, history and geography—is lamentable. The classics are almost unknown. Even in this honourable House, a Latin tag, even of the most common type, has to be translated. In the increasingly high standard of housing in which most people live today, we see the large fridge, the huge television box, the water softener and every other gadget. The only things that we do not see are the books that were to be seen in the old days.
I believe that part of the failure is due to the lack of discipline in our schools and the new methods of teaching. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Liverpool. Walton (Mr. Hefter), whose English nationalism, on devolution, I so admire, say that he wanted children to be brought up with a sound knowledge of the three Rs and to be properly educated.
Children need to be taught. They need to be made to learn. If not, they will never cope with the battle of life. It is on these simple and fundamental facts that the Government have failed. They tend to close their eyes. They have made no constructive suggestions. They say that all is marvellous, and that the jam is spread everywhere, but the jam is of such thinness that it can hardly be seen. In fact, it is full of turnips and not strawberries.
I believe that it is necessary to have tests in life, and not just examinations. I fully agree that we may have to have headmasters' reports, interviews and various different schemes, but in the end we must try to measure ability. We cannot allow the present sloppiness that has crept in under the present Administration to continue. If we do, we shall fall even further behind our Continental neighbours.

Miss Margaret Jackson: If we are talking about sloppiness, especially in our thought processes, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to two factors in his speech. First, he claims that we have said that nothing is wrong with our standards of education. That is singularly inaccurate, as he will realise if he reads Hansard. We have made statements about the unwisdom of the solution proposed by the hon. Member for Brent,


North (Dr. Boyson). It is inaccurate for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we have claimed that nothing is wrong. Secondly, I was fascinated by his references to the halcyon golden age to which he was looking back, in which every house was crammed with books and in which every child spoke more than one language. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman spent his childhood, but obviously it was in quite a different country from that in which I spent mine.

Mr. Stokes: I am rather older than the charming young lady, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. I was brought up in a country rectory, with village people. Certainly they knew the Authorised Version of the Bible. They knew the Book of Common Prayer. They knew Pilgrim's Progress and they knew the glorious history of our country by heart. Most of those things have been lost.
In the days of which I am speaking the nation was far greater than it is today. The fact is that we have fallen behind the Continent. I saw France when it was in ruins. It has made a magnificent recovery. The hon. Lady cannot deny that, or laugh at it. If she examines the so-called old-fashioned and rigorous French education system, she will find that one of the results is that the French Foreign Office can make circles round ours, and certainly round our present Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The French Civil Service and the French Government are, alas, greatly superior to ours. The standard of education is far higher in Europe. Almost any young man in Europe can speak three languages, whereas most Englishmen can barely speak their own language.

Miss Joan Lestor: Miss Joan Lestor (Eton and Slough)rose—

Mr. Stokes: I give way to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. It is a great pity that in the village in which the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes) was brought up there was not a copy of "Erskine May" to enable him to know when he was in order.

Miss Joan Lestor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a minority of primary schoolchildren in my constituency can speak both Urdu and English?

Mr. Stokes: I bow to the hon. Lady's ability as a teacher and to her erudition in Urdu and English, but I am still mainly concerned—I make no apology for this—with this country and with our decline.
I believe that our decline is mainly moral, but it is to some extent educational. That is why my hon. Friends and I regard the Bill so seriously. That is why we intend to stay here all night, if necessary, and all tomorrow, to fight it, clause by clause.
A further error that the Government make is to imagine that all education has to be clerical. It is vital to speak and write good English, but some people at the age of 15 or 16 find that their fulfilment and their abilities are rather greater in some other skill, such as—dare I say it—that of a craftsman. I am told by many industrialists that there is a far greater shortage of craftsmen than of clerks. Why should we not have more craftsmen and fewer of those who speak and write such had English? What has bedevilled the education system since the Government have been in power is their determination to turn this once renowned and respected old England into some sort of mindless mass of semi-educated people who know a little of something but nothing of anything that very much matters.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has attacked me in my personal and public life, and I think I am entitled to reply. I have spent many years trying to help young, middle-aged and older people in their careers. I have found that careers guidance and advice on the choice of careers has been extremely poorly done. Unlike the Government, who believe in dealing with the mass and the State, I believe in dealing with the individual. The duty of any Government is to encourage each individual to advance himself to the maximum extent possible. The individual should be encouraged in so doing. He should not be held back by schemes of egalitarianism that appear to be of more


fundamental importance to the Government than the education of future generations of the British people,

Mr. Spearing: If I said anything that caused the hon. Gentleman to make the interpretation that he has indicated, I wholeheartedly withdraw it. It was said in the cross-flow of debate.

Mr. William Small: I intervene for only one minute to make a comment on the intellect of Members in this Chamber. I thought that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) would give us impeccable teaching in educational terms. The hon. Gentleman talked about "kids". If he looks in Hansard tomorrow, he will find that was the word he used. I thought that kids were the offspring of goats, not people.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Skeet: I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). I certainly agree that standards of education in the United Kingdom have declined. We need standards today.
I have not had 16 years' experience in a comprehensive school, but I am the father of two boys. Therefore, I have considered these matters practically. When I look at the population I require no convincing that our standards have gone down. Yet all that the Government can produce is this Bill, which will do nothing to conserve standards. Indeed, we have only to look at Clause 1, which provides for a system of education
not based…on selection by reference to ability or aptitude.
To have ability or aptitude as a standard may now be disclaimed.
I listened to the Under-Secretary with interest. The hon. Lady indicated that she was not going to bound ahead with any experiment, but was going to read the reports one after the other. The Department of Education and Science is trying to invent new criteria for defining literacy. We have seen this before on many occasions. Education is being debased. Whenever the Government get into difficulty over the cost of living, they bring out a new index. Whenever they have trouble with sterling, they find ways of hoodwinking the public into believing that the situation is vastly improved.
Everybody, inside or outside this House, knows that educational standards have declined. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches do not know that standards in education have declined, I suggest that they go back to their constituencies and ask any man in the street.

Mr. Ken Weetch: Before I came into this House I spent eight years training teachers and nine years teaching before that. What practical experience has the hon. Gentleman, to make the observation that he has just made?

Mr. Skeet: My practical experience with men is considerable. I have travelled the globe. I was born abroad. I have had considerable experience in the United Kingdom. I am a professional man, and the father of two boys. That is the experience of life which enables me to come to that conclusion. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should go to his constituency and inquire whether standards in some of the local schools have declined. I think that in some schools standards are going up, and I am delighted. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman why standards generally are declining. I have given a little thought to this matter.
First, I challenge any person—headmaster or anybody else, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson)—to teach in a class where there is indiscipline. If there is considerable indiscipline, no child can learn. If the Department of Education and Science could devise some means of ensuring that teachers who can maintain maximum control are selected, I should be delighted. If methods can be found to ensure that discipline is maintained in classes, all well and good.
What worries me is that the Labour Party is more concerned about systems of education than the education of children.

Mr. Spearing: No.

Mr. Skeet: We support variety in education. We support public schools, direct grant schools—the lot—because they give parental choice, but the Labour Party is concerned to bring in, overnight, one system, and one system only—regimentation of the mind. The Labour Party wants regimentation of the same


type as was found in Nazi Germany prior to the war. [Interruption.] There has been conduct in the House of Commons of which hon. Gentlemen will not be too proud—for example, the breaking of pairs.

Mr. Flannery: Where was the hon. Gentleman in the early hours of this morning?

Mr. Skeet: I was at the House very early this morning. I must not deviate too far. However, as I have been challenged, there was also the case of the Shipbuilding and Aircraft Industries Bill, when the Government suspended the rules of the House.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Mr. Gwilym Roberts (Cannock) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I am not sure that this comes within the terms of the new clause.

Mr. Skeet: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask me a question on this clause.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The hon. Gentleman referred to certain indisciplines in the House and elsewhere. Does he not agree with me that these indisciplines are a reflection of the "devil-take-the-hindmost and every-man-for-himself" sort of society of which he is an advocate?

Mr. Skeet: One of the difficulties with some hon. Members is that their chips are so large that they cannot get them off their shoulders. I wonder whether they would try to approach education and life in the way that many other people try to do. We are much more cheerful about these matters, and like to see things in their proper perspective.
I have been trying to indicate why it is essential to have variety, and why we have difficulties in education today in the United Kingdom.
One problem may be the quality of teachers. I was appalled last night to find that the Secretary of State for Scotland is recruiting teachers in Canada. Is it because the quality of recruit here is not good enough? Is this also one of the reasons why literacy is not as high as it should be in the United Kingdom?
As to the problem of truancy, it is obvious that if a child is absent from school he cannot be educated.
Then there is the language problem. In Bedford we have a very large immigrant population. I pay tribute to the work of the local education authority, which has done a remarkable job in ensuring that the children are ready to receive education. It does so by giving them special language courses. Our experiments in this regard are probably the best in the country. Anyone who doubts this should come to Bedford and look at them. But this is precisely the sort of thing that the clause suggests. The authority is seeking to establish a standard in order that children may go on to further education and take full advantage of the system.
We have first to understand the cause of illiteracy in the United Kingdom, and then we have to have a standard to which people can approximate, hoping that they will then try to surpass it. We ought not to muddle this with the 11-plus examination, which at least kept people on course and was an aspiration towards which they could work. Unfortunately, there are no standards towards which people can work today. Industrialists say that they want boys and girls to be educated up to certain standards, but in practice they have to get hold of young people themselves and advance them to the required standards, when this should be done under the education system.
I hope that the Minister will be accommodating and say that, although the clause may not be in the form he would like, he will nevertheless take it away and put it into the right language.
Standards are very useful in both life and education. It is surprising that this aspect has not been thought of before. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North mentioned that in the last century people thought about it, but it has not been incorporated in the Bill in the way that it should be. In setting up standards, various criteria have to be established, and the matter requires to be carefully thought out. No doubt they could be brought in by the Minister by Order in Council.
How is this to be secured in practice? Surely nothing could be more reasonable than to defer a child's education for one


year while he catches up, before he moves on. Special instruction could be given. We have many teachers who are idle today. This might be an extremely useful exercise for them. Rather than pay for social security, or to guarantee their salaries, we could use them in maintaining high standards in our schools, where they are particularly required. Something should also be done to re-assess teaching methods.
I earnestly suggest to the Secretary of State that he should accept the clause. It is a very sound one. It deals with a nonparty matter. It will benefit children and be of advantage to our education system.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I was interested to hear the view of the Minister, and of the hon. Member who had taught in secondary schools for 13 or 14 years, that almost the worst thing that could happen to a child was to be held back for a time while the other children in the class were promoted. However, I suspect that I am not the only Member, even among those in the Chamber at present, who can remember his own school days and being held back for a while, perhaps as a result of illness. Perhaps one missed a large part of a term and one was held back while one's colleagues in the class went on. I can remember being grateful for being held back so that I could do the work I had missed and not being forced to go on when it would have been assumed by the teachers that I knew work that I had not been able to learn.
Therefore, it seems idiotic for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and say that the worst thing that can happen to a child is to be held back for a time while his peers go on.

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a very big difference between being held back inside a school, particularly a selective school, in some way or other and being prevented from going from a junior school to a senior school with one's peers, and that the effect of that on a child of 10 is a very different matter from the situation that he describes, with which I have some sympathy?

Mr. Goodhart: I should have thought that, if anything, it was worse to be in

the same school and to see one's colleagues of the previous term going into another classroom. That is surely more degrading, if it be degrading at all, than seeing them disappearing to another school, when one cannot be taunted.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Could not the State system take a lesson from the private sector of education, in which the transfer age from prep school to public school is extremely flexible? Some pupils pass from prep school to public school at 12½ and some do not go until they are 14. It depends entirely upon their ability and educational development. Perhaps the maintained system can take a lesson from the private sector over the very thing that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was talking about, which is flexibility of education.

Mr. Goodhart: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) was so ably moving the Second Reading of the new clause, he made some disparaging remarks about the Bullock Committee on literacy. I agree with my hon. Friend that the report could have been shorter and more definite and that the observations made could have been expressed more pungently. However, at least it underlined the commonsense factor that in schools literacy and books go hand in hand and that if one wants literate schoolchildren it is desirable that there should be a large and ample supply of books in schools.
We know, alas, that there is a very wide difference in the provision of school books between one area and another, and, indeed, between schools in the same area. The Government traditionally wash their hands of this state of affairs. At Question Time today we had a Minister saying at the Dispatch Box that this was not a matter for the Government and that the provision of books was a matter solely for local education authorities. The Government have consistently turned their backs on the recommendations in the Bullock Report that there should be national standards and national advice and that working parties should be set up.
8.45 p.m.
One of the advantages which would flow from acceptance of the new clause is that attention would be drawn to the schools where there was a higher-than-average failure rate in the literacy test. I suspect one would find that the schools which had a high failure rate in any national literacy test were also deficient in the provision of school books. I welcome the new clause because it would not only provide a necessary test for children but would provide a necessary test for schools themselves and would give us much needed guidance on where the too-scarce resources should be allocated.

Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemp-town): I should first declare an interest as a governor of a school in my constituency, the Stanley Deason School, in which I have had the opportunity of taking a close interest for some 10 years and which in recent times has been facing considerable upheaval and change. However, thanks to the determination in particular of the headmaster and the staff, it is coping extremely well with the problems which have been created.
The House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) moved the new clause very effectively. I should like to bring the clause to the attention of the House in relation to individual parents. I suspect that many of my colleagues have found in recent years that more and more parents have been to see them at their constituency advice centres, or have written to them, expressing concern about standards in the schools, standards in education and standards of discinpline. There are many reasons why schools go through a cycle of difficulty. In most cases it reflects upon the standard and the quality of the staff.
When we look at the teaching profession as a whole, we realise that the country can be proud of the standard of the men and women who have taken up teaching as their career and profession. However, we must not blink the fact that an increasingly large number of pupils who move from primary to secondary education are not able to read as well as they should, are not able to express themselves in the way they should and clearly have not had the right dis-

ciplinary standards applied in their early formative years in education.
Some hon. Members might have seen a document produced by the French Embassy in London entitled "Education In France". I commend it to the Secretary of State, although perhaps he has read it already. In particular, I would refer to page 10 of that document, which ties in closely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stour-bridge (Mr. Stokes) said. It states:
Primary education is provided in elementary schools. There is a common curriculum divided into five successive levels; the length of the first level may vary.
Primary education is designed to give the child the basic tools of learning: oral and written expression, reading, and arithmetic; it promotes the development of intelligence and artistic sensitivity, manual, physical and sporting abilities. It provides an initiation to the plastic and musical arts. In conjunction with his parents, it undertakes the moral and civic education of the child".
Those seem to me to be the fundamental reasons for education and the importance of starting in the right way at the first stage.
On page 15, the document refers to the timetable during primary education, taking an average week. Fifteen hours a week are spent on the basic subjects—language, reading and arithmetic; six hours a week are spent on subjects which make the children aware of their environment—history, geography, natural sciences; and six hours a week are spent on open-air activities, including physical training and team sports. We have a good deal to learn from the French. There, surely, is a basis on which primary education can prepare children for the advanced stages of education.
The area which concerns me most is the standard of discipline in primary education. In my days at school, I never took easily to hard work. Many years ago, there were ways and means of persuading one to work rather harder than one might have done which are not popular today.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It did my hon. Friend a lot of good.

Mr. Bowden: That is a point of view my late father held. When he took me to the school on one occasion, he said that if I was not regularly beaten it was unlikely that I would work hard.
One might argue that the pendulum in discipline has swung from one end to the other.

Mr. Winterton: That is an unfortunate choice of words.

Mr. Bowden: I have to follow my hon. Friend occasionally.
When we talk about free discipline, that is really only another term for no discipline at all. That can create nothing short of chaos in the classroom, which must affect every pupil. Many children do not find it easy to learn, and they need the help of a disciplined environment. If we fail to provide it, as in too many cases we are failing, expensive remedial work is required.
Many schools—some, I regret to say, even in my constituency—have to spend a great deal of time in providing remedial classes at the higher levels of education. This is expensive in resources, particularly of skilled teachers, and in finance. Everything possible must be done to avoid that problem. One solution would be the new clause and the setting of basic minimum standards.
Even in higher education, even in some universities, what are effectively remedial classes have to be provided to prepare the students effectively for a degree course. That is scandalous. It is a gross misuse of funds, skills and teaching abilities.
Parents have the right to know what are the intentions of the education system. They have a right to know the basic standards that they can expect their children to attain as they pass through each stage of the education process. More and more parents ask for that information. A broad minimum standard at each level would be of great benefit to the teaching profession, and above all to the children. If we combine those standards with new steps to check and monitor them, we shall take a rapid step forward and get away from the gentle slide of standards and discipline, which is in danger of escalating.
I commend the new clause. I hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. Flannery: It would be difficult to find a more backward new clause than this one. It has the hallmark of the name at its head. I refer to the hon. Member

for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). In Committee the hon. Gentleman told us that he had once been a truant from school. He delved into the past, almost looking over the battlements. He told us how wicked mankind was and how people were prone to evil from childhood. He almost used the ecumenical expressions that are dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas). The hon. Gentleman told us that he had a picture of children in a school yard wearing long grey socks and performing Swedish drill, and that he used it on a Christmas card. I hope that the Opposition remember that tour de force. It was positively feudal. It reeked of educational backwardness.
In their efforts to denigrate the education system, the Opposition overstate their case so monumentally that increasingly few people listen to it, although some people are able to drive the point home morning, noon and night in newspapers which they own. We are subjected to a constant barrage of propaganda on the evils facing schoolchildren and teachers. I speak as an experienced teacher. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] The Opposition do not like that. They speak with the inexperience of a backward class. That is the reality.
I should have liked all the children of this country to have seen what recently happened in this place when an hon. Gentleman seized and wielded the Mace. The Opposition talk about indiscipline, and they have the nerve to condemn children and schools. That is a point to counter the educational nonsense which is contained in this pseudo clause.

Mr. Macfarlane: Mr. Macfarlane rose—

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Flannery: Hon. Gentlemen must be patient. I have listened patiently to the claptrap turned out by Conservative Members. They must be patient while I speak good, common sense.
Running down the educational system is a time-honoured pursuit. It is usually an indication of hardening of the arteries or old age. It is easy to denigrate a system that people are honourably in process of building up with the funds at their disposal. It is no answer to hold examinations for primary children instead of the constant process of daily assessment


through human contact between teacher and child. As any experienced primary school teacher knows, that former system belongs to the past and has been relegated to the dustbin of history.
When the 11-plus examination is lifted from the primary schools, the teachers tell us that our primary schools are the pride of international education.

Dr. Hampson: Dr. Hampson rose—

Mr. Flannery: I give way to the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), who has made such salient points.

Dr. Hampson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the new clause is taken directly from the Bullock Report, which advocates a system of testing, particularly at the age of 7 and around the age of 11?

Mr. Flannery: I gave evidence to the Bullock Committee.
In the school of which I was head, the teachers each day listened to the children as they read. When children have difficulties, there is no substitute for taking them round one's desk in a way which should be dear to the hearts of Opposition Members, and I should want that to happen in any school of which I was the head. If ever I left this place to become a headmaster, I would do that again. I would want a continuous process of assessment without the rigid formality of examinations. We have steadily got rid of the backward mentality of "Friday morning is test morning", utilising time in nonsensical examinations when we should have been teaching and making a continuous, daily, human, compassionate assessment of the children.
Subsection (2) of this futile clause would result in children being held back. The time for that has long passed. Let us hope that never again will young people be held back with younger children. That is one of the most dreadful practices in the education calendar. I hope that Opposition Members, through lack of knowledge of teaching and education, will no longer advocate such puerile nonsense.
Coming to the question of conduct in schools, Opposition Members talk as though school were an organisation for rectifying the ills of society. School, with deadly accuracy I am sorry to say, re-

fleets the ills of the society outside. The society which we have imposed on the children is reflected in the school. It is nonsense to expect school to rectify the ills which we have created. Does anyone think that what happens in the primary school is responsible for the vandalism which occurs in our acquisitive society, in which Opposition Members lead the way. The acquisitive, devil-take-the-hindmost and weakest-to-the-wall society is imposed by Opposition Members, and it is reflected in the schools in which the children are taught.
Does anyone think that the hooliganism which occurs at football matches stems from schoolchildren? It stems from an illness deep within the bowels of the society in which we live. That has to be rectified, and it cannot be blamed on the schools.
This attempt to blame comprehensive education is to be expected from an elitist group the members of which have done everything for themselves and their children, and have held back the vast majority of children. But it will not work. We have twigged it. We see where it leads. We are determined to provide a compassionate, broad, general education of the type which is going from strength to strength and which has produced higher scholastic achievements than we have ever had, despite the denigration by the Conservative Party.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We have just heard a fine example of intellectual arrogance. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has indicated that he knows best and that everybody else's views do not count. I am not so sure that it would not be far better for the children of this country if the hon. Gentleman were to remain in this House rather than return to the classroom. It was a very famous Tory Prime Minister, a man with many progressive ideals and ideas, who said that the youth of a nation are the trustees of posterity. I do not think I need remind that hon. Gentleman that that was said by Benjamin Disraeli. I am sure he would also have agreed that children have a right to be educated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) indicated, in his excellent remarks to the House, that parents have a right to know,


and a right to expect certain standards. More than that, I would say that children have a right to know that they are being educated to a proper standard in literacy and in numeracy, and it is my view that many of the proposals of this Government will deny children this basic human right of knowing that they are to be educated to a proper standard.
If we are not very careful, in the years ahead children will become the new deprived—deprived of being able to read a job advertisement to get work, deprived of being able to do simple calculations, deprived of knowing the joy of being able to communicate with one another because they cannot write, and deprived, through lack of discipline, of being able to take their place in a free and ordered society. All the massive spending on new buildings, new laboratories, new teaching systems and glass palaces of varying opulence cannot hide the basic deprivation of children if they have not the ability to read and write, add, or communicate with others. Surely, this is what this new clause is all about.
We want this provision written into this Bill to ensure that there are proper standards for what is a very basic foundation of good life for any young person. I put to the House these questions: what extra opportunity and what guarantee of standards have been given to children who once went to a grammar school and perhaps now go to the neighbourhood comprehensive school, and those who otherwise would have gone to a secondary modern school where a good structured education once enabled the late developer, perhaps the young person requiring remedial teaching, to be given an equal educational opportunity? I would say particularly to one or two hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the Government side of the House that for a number of years I have taken an active interest in education, both private and maintained. For a number of years I served as chairman of governors of a non-selective secondary school—an excellent school that produced excellent results in examinations, and where there was concern for the discipline of young people. Why? Because they had a fine headmaster who believed in a structured school, in examinations and discipline, and who set a

fine example for that school, which produced such excellent results for the young people who went there.
I submit that the bright youngster—boy or girl—from a working-class background will be more deprived under the present Government proposals than he or she ever was under what some people so often criticise, the old 11-plus system. Indeed, under the 11-plus system, a child at a secondary modern school probably had better teaching and more opportunities to go to a university than does his counterpart who today is consigned to a comprehensive school with 2,000 pupils. At least the secondary school was smaller and was more able to cope with a child's individual needs, often with great success.
I direct that remark particularly to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who for a number of years was a lecturer in education. I was a school governor for a number of years, as well as chairman of a governing body. I have taken an active interest in the running of the school concerned. I visited the school frequently, and have attended classes there to see the type of education that is provided. I was delighted to find that the school insists on standards of numeracy and literacy, because it knows that that is the foundation on which all subsequent educational progress is based.

Mr. Flannery: Schools still do that.

Mr. Winterton: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that I wish that were the case, because statistics clearly show a lowering of academic standards of numeracy and literacy in recent years.
Are the present proposals the equality of educational opportunity that the Socialists use as their defence for destroying the British educational system? Are Socialists proud that the only way for children to pass exams is to lower the standard to such an extent that everybody will hold meaningless, worthless certificates.
The subject of competition at school was absent from the speech made by the hon. Member for Hillsborough.

Mr. Flannery: Deliberately absent.

Mr. Winterton: Competition at school, with the emphasis on attainment, is necessary to spur children on to greater success. The hon. Gentleman may disagree, but that is a fundamental belief that I hold. It certainly has not done youngsters any harm in the whole of our history.
When the overwhelming evidence is against what the Government are doing, why are Socialists determined to implement the scheme by force? I suggest that they may not want a high standard of education for the nation as a whole. Only a collapse of the education system can contribute to the destruction of capitalism, which certain Labour Members seek. A determined policy to create a situation of virtual anarchy in our schools is the motive behind the policy promoted by so many Socialists.
Let me again refer to the subject of standards. I believe that the abolition of the 11-plus examination as a monitoring instrument, and the withdrawal by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), when Secretary of State for Education, of the system of general inspections by Her Majesty's Inspectors and the influence of teachers who see their task as a "liberating" rather than as a teaching rôle, have played their part in the decline in standards, about which so many of us feel so strongly.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition believes that we are feeding into our children doubts rather than beliefs—that we have begun to teach them to doubt without teaching them to believe. That is an important philosophical point, and it has an important bearing on this clause.
Standards are vital not only to the children but also to their parents. If we want to encourage parents to take a more active interest in their children's education, surely we must give them an objective upon which to set their eyes. We must give them a standard that they will encourage their child to attain.
9.15 p.m.
One of the latest developments in education put forward by the educational bureaucrats of Whitehall and County Hall, with advice and cajoling by educational trendies, is the open plan school, which is physically without classroom

divisions. I would ask some of these people, particularly the hon. Member for Hillsborough, how they can really assess the progress of a child in one of these open plan schools. I believe that this new trend, if carried to the ultimate, will wreak havoc with standards.
I hope that Conservative Members on education committees will be vigilant in ensuring that the educational bureaucrats of County Hall do not slip this proposal through on the pretext of lower costs to ratepayers. Open plan schools, in which children wander between activities and in which no teacher has any definite responsibility pinned on him or her for the standards of children, are schools in which there is little or no security of syllabus or structure. Such schools have no place in the education of children, in my philosophy.
How can these children be assessed day by day with that human touch that the hon. Member for Hillsborough mentioned? How can teachers assess the actual standards that young girls and boys are achieving in writing and arithmetic?
Another aspect that is not directly related to the new clause is the ability of youngsters to communicate with each other and with teachers and parents. Today, the art of communication is more important than it was in the past. Educational psychologists have indicated to me that many of the problems facing young people today, and many of the frustrations that are generated, are caused because they cannot express themselves. All this is a part of education.
The new clause that we are now debating is an attempt by the Opposition to ensure that young children are able to attain certain standards in numeracy and literacy. I strongly support the new clause and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) on the competent and excellent way in which he put the case for it.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I think that there is no doubt about the existence of the problem with which the new clause is concerned. I do not think that one can be either dogmatic or absolute in one's approach to this subject, because there are a number of causes of lower attainment in literacy and numeracy.
There is far more which has to be taught today than there ever was before. The sum of human knowledge is cumulative and each generation faces the problem of how to teach children all they had to be taught before, plus a lot more besides. My own experience is mixed. I find that children from some schools have attained a remarkably high degree of literacy and numeracy while children in other schools have attained a deplorably low degree. There is a very great variation, and the extent of the variation between our schools should be particularly worrying to us all.
This is an enormously important subject because the correlation between crime and backwardness in reading is one of the best attested correlations one can find. There is no doubt at all that the child who is educationally backward is characteristically the one who is involved in crime. I do not think there is any absolutely easy solution. At least one element of clarity in my mind is that discipline is essential.
Everyone tonight seems to be talking about his own children. I seem to have had a fair number myself. I have always been impressed, upon asking one of them for an estimate of a particular member of the teaching staff, at being told in particular cases "So-and-so is no good; he or she cannot keep order." A child instantly condemns a teacher who cannot keep order and is annoyed and frustrated, and in a sense cheated, because an intelligent child wants to learn but cannot do so in a class where order is not kept. It is fundamental, therefore, that a good teacher must keep order, by sheer force of personality if necessary.
It has been necessary to try to elaborate new techniques, but the trouble is that they have rather gone to people's heads. I have heard teachers complaining that unless one has a gimmick one stays where one is, that a gimmicky teacher might become a local inspector and that an acutely gimmicky teacher might become an HMI. I think it was Bacon who said:
Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man and writing an exact man.
The television and wireless are the equivalent of conference or conversation, and those who say, rather too glibly, that our children are highly intelligent and

well-informed these days are referring to the fact that in a sense they are too ready. But the trouble is that children do not read enough. That is the fault not only of the schools but particularly of the home. If a child is a reader, he is home and dry. If he is not a reader, academically he is sunk.
In the schools there has been excessive reliance upon techniques other than writing. After all, what one surely wants to do with a child is to extend its power of abstract thought, to extend the degree to which it can project its thoughts without concrete props. I referred earlier to the problem of indiscipline and the difficulty of conducting an indisciplined class. With the noise which is coming from the Government Benches, I think we can see a very good example of that problem at the moment. Perhaps it does not matter, however, because I despair in that quarter.
To return to what I was saying, I think that there has been, especially in primary schools, too great a reliance on these props to teach children through concrete and corporeal examples, and this has given them a certain facility for the time being.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is most difficult for some of us to hear the excellent speech by my hon. and learned Friend because of the chatter of conversation being conducted on the Government Benches.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would help if the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) were to address the Chair instead of turning his back on Members on the Government Benches who are trying to hear what he is saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not wish to discourage anyone from addressing the Chair, but I was having no difficulty in hearing what the hon. and learned Gentleman was saying.

Mr. Bell: I thought I was addressing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if there is a great desire on the Government Benches to hear what I have to say I am intensely gratified.
I entirely applaud the new clause, which ventures into a complicated area


with many considerations on both sides. I do not think one wants to write off the present generation of schoolchildren as uneducated and entirely in the hands of cranks and lunatics. That would be exaggerating a case which is quite strong enough without any exaggeration.
We have been asked during the debate for evidence of what has been said. I cast my mind back to when teachers' superannuation was an important issue. Almost every teacher in the country wrote to hon. Members. It was like a written examination. One was shattered to find how few teachers knew that there was an "a" in the word Parliament.

Sir George Young: There are two.

Mr. Bell: I am not sure that some of them knew that there was even one.
It is obvious that the formalism of education has not had a high place in the education of some teachers. We have had to introduce an examination in the use of the English language because it can no longer be taken for granted. The teaching of language is one of the met-wands by which one might judge. The English language is not taught in a formal way. Children are not explicitly taught sentence structure. They are given instead an absurd exercise called comprehension. Any child can bluff his way through a comprehension test, but to tell the difference between an adverbial clause and a noun-subject clause one must have a clear-cut mind.
I was never very good at mathematics, and when I was at school it was easy for a child who was not good at mathematics to be left behind in the class and to lose touch with those who understood the subject. Since then, there has been an immense improvement in the teaching of mathematics in good schools by good teachers. Systems like the Southampton mathematics project are helpful to children who would be backward in the subject and who could hold back the brighter child. The dilemma is whether one should teach a subject by a refined simplicity, which helps the child who finds it hard to grasp mathematical concepts but which creates the problems of a transition from traditional methods for the brighter child. One has to face up to that kind of problem.
That brings me to the new clause. I do not brush aside the objection raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to the proposition of holding back a child from transferring from one school to another. But there is a strong argument against sending a child to secondary school without the basic equipment of a facility in language and numbers. The job of the primary school should be to give a child the tools. The job of the secondary school is to teach the child to use those tools for the absorption and comprehension of the great mass of human knowledge. Is it right to send a child to secondary school without those tools? On the whole, head teachers' conferences have been against it. Head teachers have complained year after year of the time they have to spend on children in the entry forms, repairing the omissions of primary schools.
It is not an easy problem. I have not come here to be dogmatic about it. I have no experience of teaching. Like other hon. Members, I have a general interest in education. But there is at least something to be said for the proposal in the new clause for an examination or test at the end of the primary phase to see whether the basic skills have been taught. I have an open mind about what the consequences of failure to pass that test should be.
I hope that the Secretary of State will treat the new clause as a serious proposition that deserves thought. The whole question of testing the adequacy of skills at the end of the primary stage requires thought. What is more, we must do something, whatever it be, to raise the average standard of literacy and control of numbers with which children are leaving the primary schools and going into the secondary system.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. William Shelton: The contributions from the Government Benches have been disappointing, in terms not of quality by of numbers. I think that I am the third successive Conservative Member to speak in this important debate. I hope for the Government's sake that the public will not be aware of Labour Members' lack of interest in what we are discussing.
I listened with great care to the few speeches from the Labour Benches. They strongly repudiated the suggestion that there had been a decline in standards. Whether or not there has been a decline, I ask Labour Members whether they are satisfied with present standards.
The hon. Lady who opened the debate for the Government used the charming word "unwisdom", which I very much doubt is to be found in a dictionary. She denied that she was satisfied, but offered no solutions.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) used the nice phrase "internal monitoring of attainments". I wonder whether he meant "testing". Perhaps he did, but perhaps, like so many of his colleagues, he does not like the word "test". I cannot believe that if they are interested in education, as I am sure many of them are, Labour Members are satisfied with the present state of affairs, whether it is better than before, worse, or as good.

Mr. Spearing: At first sight, the word "test" is superior to the phrase I used. In schools today testing has a place, in the sense of an objective examination, but there is something much more sensitive. It may be that regular and persistent looking at the way in which pupils are responding comes within that rather complicated phrase, which is an additional and very important part. Conservative Members do not always realise that it has a part to play.

Mr. Shelton: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would tell us whether he was satisfied with standards, as that is what we are talking about. How can he tell how pupils are doing without testing them in one way or another?
We on the Opposition side are not satisfied with the standards in our schools. I shall briefly give some reasons. First, I refer the Secretary of State to a document called "Educational Priority" published a year or so ago by his Department and the Social Science Research Council, which undertook research in schools in Liverpool, Birmingham, Deptford and the West Riding. A short report on it said that
Thousands of children leave inner-city primary schools at the age of 11 unable to

read even a simple sentaence, according to a Government-sponsored report published today.
Are Labour Members satisfied that that should be so? I refer them to another survey—"Children's Reading Interests", published for the Schools Council, and written by Mr. Frank Whitehead. A report on it said:
Forty per cent. of boys aged 14 never read anything more serious than a comic in their spare time, according to a random survey of 8,000 children between 10 and 14".
Is the Secretary of State satisfied with that?
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to a report in the Teacher magazine, published by the Inner London Education Authority, which says:
Over half a sample of 16-year-old day release pupils had a reading level below the average of 10 year old pupils.
Is the Secretary of State satisfied with that?
A study undertaken by the social studies department of Oxford University into the special problems of immigrant children found that 60 per cent. of Asian children in Birmingham could not read English at the age of 11. Are the Government satisfied with that?
Mrs. Payne, who undertook that study, commenting on teaching in junior schools said that junior schoolteachers are generally not taught how to teach reading. This is thought to be the province of infant schools, yet in the junior schools studied, a large proportion of children were quite unprepared for the work expected of them. Clearly, something is wrong with our standards. They may be no worse, but everyone in the House should be as concerned about them as we are.
We have had no concrete proposals from hon. Members on the Government side of the House. If I may paraphrase the words of the hon. Member for Newham, South, they have talked of testing, and constant assessment, but they have not suggested any real action.
A headmaster told me the other day about a 10-year-old boy who arrived in his school on a Monday morning having come from Jamaica on the previous Friday. He had been living with his grandmother in the hills above Montego Bay


and had had no education. His grandmother was taken ill, and the boy was put on a plane to join his mother in this country. On Monday morning he arrived at school. Such boys must be properly indentified and helped, or they will suffer grievously themselves and cause the children in their forms to suffer at the same time.
We should not underestimate the importance of reading and writing. One hon. Member opposite said how terrible it was to hold a boy back, but is it not much more terrible to allow a boy to leave school without being able to read or write properly? I wonder whether hon. Members opposite have ever talked to an adult illiterate. I have, and I found it a frightening experience. Think what it must be like to be illiterate.
The person to whom I was speaking was a lavatory attendant, and his ambition was to become a waiter in a restaurant. When I asked why he could not become a waiter, he said he could not read menus and would not know the prices. He cannot drive a car because he cannot read speed signs. These people are living in a different world. We must try to put ourselves in their position and imagine what it is like.
Hon. Members suggest that the worst thing in the world is holding a boy back for six months or a year to teach him to read and write properly. Are they not more concerned about people who leave school without being able to read or write at all? It is most terrible that that should happen to anyone.
Next, I wish to talk about the importance of mathematics. There is no doubt that some universities are having to establish remedial classes for mathematics for their students. They have to teach the basic facts and skills that the students have not acquired as they should have done. They lack a basic understanding of
algebra, calculus, geometry and other disciplines.
I point out to the Government—this may convince them—that in the Soviet Union there are special schools for selected children who are gifted mathematically. There are special boarding schools in the major cities of the Soviet Union, while most cities of any size have special day schools

for those specially gifted in mathematics and physics. Perhaps the Russians are right to provide those schools, but I am not arguing that point. I am saying that at least our students must have basic numeracy and literacy before they leave school.
We are saying by means of the clause that the right time for the remedial class is before the student moves on from primary school to secondary school. Unless there is an examination such as we are recommending, how are we to identify the children who need help? Of course, it is a form of selection, but it is the same form of selection that is used to identify an educationally subnormal child who needs help, or a child who is hard of hearing or partially sighted.
The child who is illiterate or not numerate needs the same sort of help as does the ESN child, the partially-sighted child, or the child who is hard of hearing. How can the illiterate child or the child who is not numerate be identified by constant assessment? He must be identified by means of an independent standard, established nationally by the Secretary of State. Those who are heard of hearing, partially sighted, or whatever, must be identified by an independent standard. That is why I so strongly support the clause.
If, by accepting the clause and instituting the test that we are proposing, perhaps keeping back a few students a year, we can reduce by 10 per cent. or by 500,000, or even 100,000, the number of illiterate adults, thus preventing them from leaving school as illiterates, we shall have done a good day's work.

Mr. George Gardiner: I hope it can be said without contradiction that the discussion of the new clause has produced a welcome debate. Certainly it has been a welcome debate for those who sat through 35 sittings in Standing Committee E. In all the discussion of the Bill which has raged since last December, we have at last broken some new ground with the clause. Those who have been involved in the proceedings in Committee might agree that some new ground in this discussion on education was badly needed.
The Bill was strongly contested by my right hon. and hon. Friends when it was presented for Second Reading. Nothing


happened in the 35 sittings in Committee to lessen our deep repugnance towards the Bill. There have been small concessions, although there has been a remarkable reluctance on the part of Ministers to acknowledge them as such. However, the Bill still remains the same centralising dictatorial measure, robbing individuals and communities alike of the rights conferred upon them under the Education Act 1944 to shape the pattern of education in their areas.
9.45 p.m.
The last time we touched on these matters was on Second Reading, when my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said:
The Bill is an insult to the intelligence of all parents and is contemptuous of the anxieties that they feel."—[Official Report, 4th February 1976; Vol. 904, c. 1234.]
That is as true today as it was last December.
While the total number of trained teachers joining the dole queue increases, while resources for education are being cut back and while the anxieties of parents, pupils, students and teachers over what is happening grow day by day, the Government have persisted with this measure, which is at worst damaging and at best irrelevant. If ever there was a betrayal of our children by those with statutory responsibilitiy for ensuring their education, it is the pursuit of this measure at the expense of recognising the real needs of parents, pupils and teachers.
The new clause sets out to bring our discussion back to the real needs which people in education are feeling. The purpose of the new clause is to bring the Government down from their flight of collectivist fancy to the reality of what is worrying people in our schools today. What more appropriate, therefore, than that the new clause should be concerned with standards of education in our schools?
The issue causing the most general concern among the parents of school age children today is the reorganisation of secondary education in some areas. We must admit and face the fact that, where this is the case, the concern usually runs in the opposite direction from that of the Government, as we discovered in the debate on New Clause 2 today.
There are many parts of the country where the comprehensive principle has

been accepted and implemented. Therefore, we have a duty to parents in those areas to see that their comprehensives have and live up to all that is claimed for them. It is a major Education Bill which does nothing whatsoever to help parents in those areas and does nothing to meet their real and growing anxieties, which have nothing to do with the argument over selectivity, to be allowed to go through this House? Are there not real anxieties held by the parents of children in the primary sector which the Bill will do nothing to meet or rectify?

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has made a useful and pertinent point. He said that the Bill would not remove any of the anxieties of parents with children in the primary sector. Surely that is what the Bill does. The greatest anxiety of all to thousands of parents with children in the primary sector is the bogy of the 11-plus which some of their children still have to face.

Mr. Gardiner: That might apply to a number of parents of children in the primary sector. However, I know from experience that there are great anxieties among those parents arising from the precipitate elimination of selection in some areas. I speak from experience in my own constituency. Parents ask why a particular school of quality, which was open to their children, is now denied to them. That school has been driven into the private sector and replaced by something which in their eyes is totally unproven. I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the valid point that what has been described as a major Education Bill should lift its eyes above the argument over selectivity which has been engaging so many of us for many years.
We must recognise that anxiety, which is very general in the country in areas which still have selective education and in those which do not. It is not good enough for Ministers on the Government Bench to reject the clause and to do nothing whatever to meet that anxiety over standards by any other measure, amendment or new clause.
The truth is that there is far more general anxiety in education today over standards than over this or that particular pattern of organisation. There is growing concern over academic standards


in our schools, as measured by results at O-level and A-level—secondary level—and as measured by literacy and numeracy attainment—the three Rs—in the primary schools.
Evidence of that is presented to us from all sides. It comes from teachers and head teachers in secondary schools who complain that children are coming up to them at 11 or 12, unable to read properly and sometimes unable even to read at all. They cannot express themselves, either verbally or in writing, have little command of number work and have no disciplined approach to learning. As a consequence, a great deal of time and effort is consumed in the first years at secondary level in remedying deficiencies which should have been corrected before the pupils ever came to that stage.
Similarly, we have the evidence presented to us from the universities. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) dealt with this just now. Many authorities in higher and further education are complaining of students coming to them from secondary schools without the knowledge and understanding which are necessary to enable them to commence the course at the levels that once applied. The university itself now very frequently has to teach basic facts and skills again before the pupils can embark on a proper degree course.
There are two well-known examples of this. One of them was cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham. It is in mathematics, where remedial classes are now frequently necessary for first-year students in chemistry, physics, engineering and other mathematical sciences and technology.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the reason why additional classes in mathematical subjects are often now incorporated in university courses is that university courses themselves are becoming far more numerical in content? That is the simple reason. It has nothing to do with the background of the student.

Mr. Gardiner: I do not deny that that may well be a factor, but it is by no means the only one. We have evidence from the Chairman of the Schools Council Mathematics Committee, Mr. Douglas Quadling, that complaints about falling standards in mathematics are justified.

Sir George Sinclair: Will my hon. Friend accept the evidence of many of those who are concerned with the admission of people from secondary schools to the universities that though bright boys and girls may be, they are not sufficiently prepared when they arrive at the university to take full advantage immediately of the courses the university has to offer? This is the evidence being given by don after don and tutor after tutor in the universities.

Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing the point I was seeking to make.
Of course, the objections that are coming from universities are not restricted to deficiencies in mathematics. Many universities are now seriously saying that for a degree course in languages they frequently have to ignore all the work which has previously been done in schools and assume that a pupil knows nothing and start again from square one. It is equally said by people at this level that the teaching of basic English grammar and the structure of language, and so on, is so poor that a pupil has no proper linguistic foundation from which to pursue the study of foreign languages.
That is the evidence that is brought to us from the universities and schools. Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the evidence that is put before us almost weekly by employers who find standards dropping among those whom they are seeking to recruit. This is a tragedy which can cause a very nasty blight upon a school leaver's start in his working career from which it may take him many years to recover, if he really recovers from it at all.
Finally, there is the evidence which must come to hon. Members on both sides of the House, the evidence from parents. This comes in our mail weekly. I ask Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who is not now present, to accept that this is not an anxiety that is being expressed from some elitist end of the population who see their own entrenched standards being undermined. Many of the letters that come to us are from working families who are very worried about the standards of education which they see sometimes applying in their local schools. These people, above


all, often recognise the great value of education in improving the lot and the life of their children above that which they themselves were able to attain. Therefore, let us not be deluded by the argument that the motive force behind these complaints over falling and lapsing standards comes from some elitist section of the population. I am sure that Labour Members must get evidence on this issue coming into their hands just as Opposition Members do.
How has this situation come about? A number of suggestions have been made this evening. First, there is the suggestion that new teaching techniques have contributed to this. That is not an argument in which I wish to become involved tonight. It is becoming a habit in the debate to declare parenthood. I am the father of three children, all of whom are in the primary sector, and I have had children taught under formal methods of teaching as well as informal methods. I have seen children benefit and suffer under both these systems.
However, when one looks at the evidence from Neville Bennett's recent study, for example—about which there is good honest argument in the economic world —it amazes me that we have to reach this point in time and get a study of that kind presented to us before we begin to ask ourselves whether we should not be testing in some way the product of these new teaching techniques that we have so happily fallen for or implemented. Should not these have come long ago, and should we not have had comparative reports before us long ago? That is one area of argument as to how the situation has come about—the application of new teaching techniques. I stress, however, that I would not want to criticise those techniques per se.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Education Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Gardiner: The second explanation put forward for this situation is the disruption that has frequently arisen from

reorganisation itself. It has been pointed out before that previous Secretaries of State from the Conservative side have agreed to comprehensive reorganisation schemes. But the important thing is to ensure the minimum disturbance and disruption to the pupils engaged in the process if, indeed, it is the will of the area concerned to have such a system.
The third reason advanced—here I echo a point made from our own Benches—could well be the application of the egalitarian ethic and the fear that has grown in many quarters of recognising and promoting excellence. On that point, if on no other, I would agree with the hon. Member for Hillsborough that frequently the mistakes and the lapses in our education system are the reflection of faults and changes in our society itself.
When intervening earlier, the Under-Secretary of State argued that no suitable tests were available for us to employ for the purpose outlined in the new clause. There are already a number of experimental monitoring schemes on reading ability. The hon. Lady will be aware of what is going on in the London borough of Croydon, where an assessment of every primary school child is made from the age of 5 up to 11. The reading is assessed and the exercise is repeated each year. This has already thrown up schools and teaching methods which are not producing satisfactory results, and the corrective measures are being introduced and implemented. Are Labour Members really against this as well? The basic supposition in the new clause is that we have reached a situation where public anxiety is now—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful to the Chair if private conversations could be carried on at a slightly lower level.

Mr. Gardiner: I suggest that there is currently sufficient anxiety among parents, and thoughout education generally, over standards in our schools to merit the consideration of setting a minimum standard for literacy and numeracy. That is the basic point covered in the new clause.
Surely the time has come to provide those minimum standards and to try to ensure that every child reaches them. The


question is asked "Why at 10½ years? "The answer is that this is the age referred to in the original 1944 Education Act as the transfer age. However, hon. Members opposite will see that the new clause allows flexibility by adding the phase
or at an age to be determined by the Secretary of State",
thus allowing for middle schools and other ages of transfer. I suggest there is no reason why such minimum standards should not also be provided for younger ages too, for the seven-year-olds or the nine-year-olds. This is a point which could well be argued.
As a first move, surely a minimum standard in basic skills should be established before moving on to secondary school level. That would be of great value in telling us how our techniques are working and in showing secondary schools how best to start with new pupils.
The second part of the clause—I am surprised at the great exception which has been taken to this—suggests that the children who do not attain the minimum standards would be better served by being kept back and brought on for one year to equip them properly for the secondary education.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: In the event of a backward child being kept back in the primary school for a year and then not making the grade, what would happen? Would he stay in the primary school for the rest of his school life?

Mr. Gardiner: A pupil who is persistently unable to reach the minimum standard would surely be a case for special education at a totally different institution.
All the evidence about anxiety over standards has come from my hon. Friends. All that we have had from Labour Members is the assertion that it has all been got up by the Press and that there is nothing to worry about.
The Under-Secretary made two basic arguments against us. First, she said that there were no suitable tests to fulfil this function. She referred to the assessment of performance unit set up to devise such tests but went on to say that the research was ongoing and implied that no satisfactory test would ever be obtained. Her second argument was that

the implications of our test were undesirable and that it would have the same characteristics as aspects of the 11-plus other than its selecting function. This is an argument against all forms of examination and assessment. Previous Labour Secretaries of State have argued against examinations at any level of study or achievement.
If Labour Members had been here for much of the debate, they would have heard their hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough argue that the only worthwhile assessment is daily contact with the teacher. He denied that there was any need for external assessment of performmance or ability at any stage. [Interruption.] But the most surprising thing about the hon. Lady's speech was her audacity in even mentioning the Bullock Report as a means of refuting what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) had said—[Interruption.]

Mr. Peter Morrison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot hear what my hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I agree with the hon. Member. I, too, had difficulty.

Mr. Freud: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard the hon. Member's speech. You have not missed anything.

Mr. Gardiner: I apologise to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). I did not detect any point in his speech that was worth an answer.
The Under-Secretary had the audacity to mention the Bullock Report. Despite all the protestations of concern by Ministers, it is a test of their integrity on this matter that the House has never yet had a chance to debate that report. Is not that evidence of their complacent approach to standards of literacy?
We are all concerned, or should be—I sometimes doubt it—over current standards of education. We may have various theories as to the reasons for those standards —reorganisation, teaching methods and the rest. Surely we cannot accept the complacency of a Government who allow the passing of an Education Bill which they regard as a major measure but which takes no step to meet the legitimate anxieties of parents and


teachers on this matter. We need effective remedies for the situation. The need to monitor and test, I should have thought had been amply spelt out by the Opposition.
We do not lay down in the clause how best the teacher should achieve these minimum standards. By means of the new clause we ask that there should be an acceptable minimum standard of attainment for all children. That is the least that the Government, in pressing this tawdry Bill on to the statute book, should accept.

Mr. Mulley: I have not previously had the privilege of realising that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) is an entertaining speaker.
There is no great difference between both sides of the House in so far as we are aware of and concerned about standards in education. Unhappily, there is nothing new in the fact that some children in our schools fail to attain the standards of literacy and numeracy that we desire.
I knew illiterates when I was conscripted into the Armed Forces 40 years ago. I lived in a barrack room with a number of illiterates. Many of them asked me to write their applications for special leave and other such matters on their behalf. My letters—at a moderate charge—usually enabled them to obtain such special leave.
The debate reflected concern about standards. The House must now decide whether or not to write into legislation a form of test which, in the judgment of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—she put it clearly to the House—and in the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), might well make standards worse rather than better.
In other contexts, we were told—it is a reasonable point—that new methods should not be introduced generally without testing and monitoring their results. To put it no higher, it would be unwise for the House to make mandatory this form of testing as a means of achieving the standards that we want.
10.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Reigate said that the Bill robbed local education

authorities of the rights conferred upon them by the 1944 Act. If there has to be a change in the balance of control of education from local government to central Government—I am not afraid to face this problem—it will be much more in the area of national standards, which imply a national control of curricular matters.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemp-town, (Mr. Bowden) quoted extensively from a publication showing how the French education system operates. As with several other countries—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—

Mr. Mulley: I should like to complete my sentence—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—

Mr. Mulley: With due deference to the hon. Lady, whose charms I can never resist, I should like to complete my sentence, when I shall willingly give way to her.
In France and in other countries there is central control of the curriculum, but that has never been our traditional practice. There may have to be a swing in our balance, but to say that the Bill robs local education authorities and teachers of their rights under the Act and, at the same time, to propose this form of testing, goes beyond anything that I might have said about that kind of balance.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the Minister accept that imposing reasonable national standards in no way implies control of the curriculum? It would be left to the headmaster to achieve the standards in his own way. All we seek to achieve is a standard, not a set curriculum as is done on the Continent.

Mr. Mulley: I thought that the anxiety that has been expressed was about teaching methods and the way subjects are taught. [Interruption.] Whatever school the hon. Lady went to, manners clearly were not on the curriculum, otherwise she would be less prone to make observations from a seated position.
It would not be appropriate to insert this form of words into the Bill. It would


be wrong to take such a dramatic step without full consultation with the local authorities. We are sometimes criticised for not fully consulting education interests. We have to think through the implications. The hon. Lady heard me say in her constituency not long ago that there is concern, and that we want to raise standards. But this is not the right way to do it, and I ask the House to reject the clause.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Cocks): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Cocks) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. Cormack (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will be clear to you that at least four hon. Members were on their feet when the Government Chief Whip sought to close the discussion on this important clause. May I therefore ask for your protection? Will you allow us to continue the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a matter for my discretion, and I have exercised my discretion.

The House having divided:Ayes 315, Noes 267.

Division No. 168.]
AYES
10.19 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Allaun, Frank
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Hardy, Peter


Anderson, Donald
Dalyell, Tam
Harper, Joseph


Archer, Peter
Davidson, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hatton, Frank


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Atkinson, Norman
Deakins, Eric
Heffer, Eric S.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hooley, Frank


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hooson, Emlyn


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Horam, John


Bates, Alf
Dempsey, James
Howell, Rt Hon Denis


Bean, R. E.
Doig, Peter
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Beith, A. J.
Dormand, J. D,
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Huckfield, Les


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bishop, E. S.
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hughes, Roy (Nwport)


Boardman, H.
Eadle, Alex
Hunter, Adam


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Edge, Geoff
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Boyden, James (BishAuck)
English, Michael
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Bradley, Tom
Ennais, David
Janner, Greville


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Evans John (Newton)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Buchan, Norman
Faulds, Andrew
John, Brynmor


Buchanan, Richard
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Flannery, Martin
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Campbell, Ian
Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Canavan, Dennis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Carmichael, Neil
Ford, Ben
Kelley, Richard


Carter, Ray
Forrester, John
Kerr, Russell


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cartwright, John
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kinnock, Neil


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Freeson, Reginald
Lambie, David


Clemitson, Ivor
Freud, Clement
Lamborn, Harry


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lamond, James


Cohen, Stanley
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
George, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted


Concannon, J. D.
Gilbert, Dr John
Lee, John


Conlan, Bernard
Ginsburg, David
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Golding, John
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Corbett, Robin
Gould, Bryan
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gourlay, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Graham, Ted
Lipton, Marcus


Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Litterick, Tom


Cronin, John
Grant, John (Islington C)
Lomas, Kenneth


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Grocott, Bruce
Loyden, Eddie


Cryer, Bob
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Luard, Evan




Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Park, George
Stott, Roger


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Parker, John
Strang, Gavin


McCartney, Hugh
Parry, Robert
Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.


McElhone, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


MacFarquhar, "Poderick
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Swain, Thomas


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Arm (Bolton W)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Mackintosh, John P.
Perry, Ernest
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Maclennan, Robert
Phipps, Dr Colin
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Prescott, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


McNamara, Kevin
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Madden, Max
Price, William (Rugby)
Tierney, Sydney


Magee, Bryan
Radica, Giles
Tinn, James


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tomlinson, John


Mahon, Simon
Richardson, Miss Jo
Torney, Tom


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tuck, Raphael


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Urwin, T. W.


Marquand, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Meacher, Michael
Rooker, J. W.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Roper, John
Ward, Michael


Mendelson, John
Rose, Paul B.
Watkins, David


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Watkinson, John


Millan, Bruce
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Weetch, Ken


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Rowlands, Ted
Weitzman, David


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Sandelson, Neville
Wellbeloved, James


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Sedgemore, Brian
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Molloy, William
Selby, Harry
White, James (Pollok)


Moonman, Eric
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Whitehead, Phillip


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Whitlock, William


Morris, Charles R. (Openehaw)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Moyle, Roland
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Newens, Stanley
Sillars, James
Williams, Sir Thomas


Noble, Mike
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Oakes, Gordon
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Ogden, Eric
Small, William
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


O'Halloran, Michael
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Orbach, Maurice
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Woodall, Alec


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Snape, Peter
Woof, Robert


Ovenden, John
Spearing, Nigel
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Owen, Dr David
Stallard, A. W.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Padley, Walter
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr. John Ellis and Mr. Donald Coleman.


Pardoe, John
Stoddart, David





NOES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Eyre, Reginald


Aitken, Jonathan
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Alison, Michael
Channon, Paul
Fairgrieve, Russell


Arnold, Tom
Churchill, W. S.
Farr, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fell, Anthony


Awdry, Daniel
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bell, Ronald
Clegg, Walter
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Cockcroft, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cope, John
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, John
Cordle, John H.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Biggs-Davison, John
Cormack, Patrick
Fox, Marcus


Blaker, Peter
Corrie, John
Fry, Peter


Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Crawford, Douglas
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bottomley, Peter
Critchley, Julian
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Crowder, F. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Brittan, Leon
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Goodhart, Philip


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Goodhew, Victor


Brotherton, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Goodlad, Alastair


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Drayson, Burnaby
Gorst, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Durant, Tony
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Buck, Antony
Dykes, Hugh
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Budgen, Nick
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Gray, Hamish


Bulmer, Esmond
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Griffiths, Eldon


Burden, F. A.
Elliott, Sir William
Grist, Ian


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Emery, Peter
Grylls, Michael







Hall, Sir John
Madel, David
Royle, Sir Anthony


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sainsbury, Tim


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mates, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Hannam, John
Maude, Angus
Scott-Hopkins, James


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hastings, Stephen
Mayhew, Patrick
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Havers, Sir Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Colin


Hawkins, Paul
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shersby, Michael


Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Peter
Silvester, Fred


Heseltine, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Sims, Roger


Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sinclair, Sir George


Higgins, Terence L.
Moate, Roger
Skeet, T. H. H.


Holland, Philip
Monro, Hector
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hordern, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Speed, Keith


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Spence, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morgan, Geraint
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Sproat, Iain


Hunt, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stainton, Keith


Hurd, Douglas
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mudd, David
Stanley, John


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Neave, Airey
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


James, David
Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Neubert, Michael
Stokes, John


Jessel, Toby
Newton, Tony
Storehouse, Rt Hon John


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Normanton, Tom
Stradling, Thomas J.


Jones, Arthur (Deventry)
Nott, John
Tapsell, Peter


Jopling, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Osborn, John
Tebbit, Norman


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Page, John (Harrow West)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Kimball, Marcus
Paisley, Rev Ian
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Parkinson, Cecil
Townsend, Cyril D.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Trotter, Neville


Kirk, Sir Peter
Percival, Ian
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Peyton, Rt Hon John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Knight, Mrs Jill
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Knox, David
Prior, Rt Hon James
Viggers, Peter


Lane, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wakeham, John


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Raison, Timothy
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lawrence, Ivan
Rathbone, Tim
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Lawson, Nigel
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wall, Patrick


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walters, Dennis


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Warren, Kenneth


Lloyd, Ian
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Weatherill, Bernard


Loveridge, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wells, John


Luce, Richard
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridsdale, Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


MacCormick, Iain
Rifkind, Malcolm
Winterlon, Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Macfarlane, Neil
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


MacGregor, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Younger, Hon George


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. Carol Matter and Mr. W. Benyon.


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 315.

Division No. 169.]
AYES
[10.32 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Peter
Carlisle, Mark


Alison, Michael
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Arnold, Tom
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Channon, Paul


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Braine, Sir Bernard
Churchill, W. S.


Awdry, Daniel
Brittan, Leon
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Banks, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Bell, Ronald
Brotherton, Michael
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clegg, Walter


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cockcroft, John


Benyon, W.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Bitten, John
Buck, Antony
Cope, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Budgen, Nick
Cordle, John H.


Blaker, Peter
Bulmer, Esmond
Cormack, Patrick


Body, Richard
Burden, F. A.
Corrie, John




Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Critchley, Julian
Jopling, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Crowder, F. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ronton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Drayson, Burnaby
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kirk, Sir Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Durant, Tony
Kitson, Sir Timorthy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Elliott, Sir William
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Emery, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Tim


Eyre, Reginald
Lawson, Nigel
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Strealham)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Colin


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shersby, Michael


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Speed, Keith


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Madel, David
Spence, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marten, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mates, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Good hart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, John


Goodhew, Victor
Mayhew, Patrick
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Goodlad, Alastair
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gorst, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stokes, John


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mills, Peler
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling, Thomas J.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tapsell, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Griffiths, Eldon
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus
Tebbit, Norman


Grylls, Michael
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hall, Sir John
Morgan, Geraint
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Trotter, Neville


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mudd, David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Neave, Airey
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hastings, Stephen
Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Havers, Sir Michael
Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, John


Hawkins, Paul
Newton, Tony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley
Wall, Patrick


Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Walters, Dennis


Holland, Philip
Osborn, John
Warren, Kenneth


Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow West)
Weatherill, Bernard


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Parkinson, Cecil
Wiggin, Jerry


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


Hunt, John
Percival, Ian
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hurd, Douglas
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Younger, Hon George


Irving, Charies (Cheltenham)
Prior, Rt Hon James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


James, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. Anthony Berry and Mr. Carol Mather.


Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'dl'd)
Raison, Timothy



Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim



Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter





NOES


Abse, Leo
Ashton, Joe
Bates, Alf


Allaun, Frank
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bean, R. E.


Anderson, Donald
Atkinson, Norman
Beith, A. J.


Archer, Peter
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood


Armstrong, Ernest
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)


Ashley, Jack
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bidwell, Sydney







Bishop, E. S.
Gilbert, Dr John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Boardman, H.
Golding, John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Gould, Bryan
Maynard, Miss Joan


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Graham, Ted
Melllsh, Rt Hon Robert


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John


Bradley, Tom
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mikardo, Ian


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grocott, Bruce
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hamilton, James (Bothwel)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Buchan, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William


Buchanan, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moonman, Eric


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Campbell, Ian
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Canavan, Dennis
Hatton, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cant, R. B.
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Moyle, Roland


Carmichael, Neil
Heller, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Carter, Ray
Hooley, Frank
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hooson, Enrlyn
Newens, Stanley


Cartwright, John
Horam, John
Noble, Mike


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Oakes, Gordon


Clemitson, Ivor
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ogden, Eric


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cohen, Stanley
Huckfield, Les
Orbach, Maurice


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ovenden, John


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Owen, Dr David


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Nwport)
Padley, Walter


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Corbett, Robin
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Pardoe, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Park, George


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Parker, John


Crawford, Douglas
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoin)
Parry, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Janner, Greville
Pavitt, Laurie


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pendry, Tom


Cryer, Bob
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Penhaligon, David


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Perry, Ernest


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
John, Brynmor
Phipps, Dr Colin


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Prescott, John


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Radlce, Giles


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kaufman, Gerald
Richardson, Miss Jo


Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kinnock, Neil
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Roderick, Caerwyn


Doig, Peter
Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rooker, J. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John


Dunn, James A.
Lee, John
Rose, Paul B.


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Rowlands, Ted


Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sandelson, Neville


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lipton, Marcus
Sedgemore, Brian


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Litterick, Tom
Selby, Harry


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Ennals, David
Loyden, Eddie
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Luard, Evan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Evans John (Newton)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Faulds, Andrew
MacCormick, Iain
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McElhone, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Skinner, Denner


Flannery, Martin
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Small, William


Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Spearing, Nigel


Forrester, John
McNamara, Kevin
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Madden, Max
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Magee, Bryan
Stoddart, David


Freeson, Reginald
Magulre, Frank (Fermanagh)
Stott, Roger


Freud, Clement
Mahon, Simon
Strang, Gavin


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marks, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


George, Bruce
Marquand, David
Swain, Thomas







Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, Sir Thomas


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Ward, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle £)
Watkins, David
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Watkinson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Thorns, Stan (Preston South)
Weetch, Ken
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Tierney, Sydney
Weitzman, David
Woodall, Alec


Thin, James
Wellbeloved, James
Woof, Robert


Tomlinson, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Torney, Tom
White, James (Pollok)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Tuck, Raphael
Whitehead, Phillip



Urwin, T. W.
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. A. W. Stallard and Mr. John Ellis.


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wllley, Rt Hon Hederick



Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)



Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

OPERATION OF PARENTS' EXPRESSION OF PREFERENCE OF SCHOOLS

'(1) In establishing the wishes of parents for choice of secondary school, in accordance with the provisions of section 76 of the Education Act 1944, a local education authority shall provide the opportunity for parents to express their preference of secondary school formally, and in writing, at least six months prior to the date of commencement of that child's secondary schooling.

(2) Where a county secondary school is over-subscribed following the exercise of parental choice on application, a list of all the applicants to that school shall be sent by the local education authority to the head teacher, together with the appropriate reports and records for each applicant, and it shall be open to that head teacher, in conjunction with the governors of his school, to choose from a list of applicants entries to that school; and he may, if desired, call for interview such applicants as he thinks fit in the same manner as is customary for the voluntary aided schools.

(3) Where a county secondary school is under-subscribed, the head teacher shall be required to accept all applicants, but will be entitled to call for reports and records of each applicant prior to registration at the school; and the head teacher may request the local education authority to re-allocate a child for whom, in his opinion, the school is unsuitable.

(4) For individual cases and exceptional circumstances, the local education authority shall have the right to override a head teacher's non-acceptance of a pupil, as provided in subsection (2) above, and insist on the registration of a pupil at that school.

(5) Head teachers of voluntary schools shall retain the right of admission to the school, whether or not the school is over-subscribed, and may call for reports, records, and interviews as may be required'.—[Dr. Hampson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.45 p.m.

Dr. Hampson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take also New Clause 6 (Transfer of pupils between schools), New Clause 27 (Across boundary choice), New Clause 28 (Choice of schools), New Clause 32 (Amendment to section 36: Selection of schools), New Clause 37 (Annual right of transfer) and New Clause 38 (Application to change school).

Dr. Hampson: The clauses cover a long list of important aspects of an overriding theme of the Opposition's case in Committee that first and foremost parents have the right to a choice of the sort of education their children shall have and that that is a fundamental part of our education system, a right enshrined in the 1944 Act.
The basic clauses in this set—New Clauses 4, 37 and 38—draw attention to that general principle, which was so important in the drafting of the 1944 Act, the general principle section of which is Section 76. When that measure came before the House in 1944, introduced by Lord Butler, as he now is, and the then Mr. Chuter Ede, much of the discussion centred on the rights of parents. The Act placed responsibility for the education of children not on the local education authority but fairly and squarely on the parents. It was then the duty of the authority to supply the means by which parents could carry out their responsibility.
Time and again during the passage of that Act, Members kept returning to that basic point. They asked whether there would be a firm guarantee that parents would have a say which meant something in the education of their children. Section 76 was originally drafted as an amendment to Clause 8 of the 1944 Bill.
We believe that there is a fundamental right, on which we have let parents down in the years since 1944. Labour Members frequently say that the right of parents to have a say has all too often meant little or next to nothing for the vast bulk of parents. We are trying to produce a scheme, a framework, which would be the basis for giving reality for the first time to that fundamental right which we have always believed that parents possessed.
Further than that, if parents can be brought into the schools, involved and interested to a far greater extent than has been the case, that will be healthy for the schools and for the children's education. We fall behind other countries in the amount of interest and concern that parents take in the schools attended by their children. Later new clauses make it clear that they have further rôles to play within the school,


and that they have a say about what happens in the school, by changing the nature of the governing system and so on. We should find that as a result parents were more involved in the education of their children.
It is a fundamental fact that for every 1,000 hours a year a child spends in school, he or she spends 8,000 hours outside it. Therefore, the influences of the parent, the home and the environment of which that home is part are fundamental for the education, development and prospects of the child. I should have thought that there was common ground on this on all sides. The point has been put many times in the House and it was put by Labour Members in Committee.
I therefore feel that we have a good right to expect the Government at least to show sympathy with what we are trying to do and, further, that they will be prepared to go beyond that, particularly in the light of the factors we advanced in argument in Committee when we tried to amend the Bill. We hope that the Government will be in a position to agree to some of the proposals in these new clauses.
I hope that we shall not get bogged down in the artificial and sterile argument that the Conservative Party supports privilege and believes that richer people who have the means will opt out and buy better education. These new clauses take for granted that we are trying to get choice and that we believe that the secondary system will be comprehensive, because that is the way in which the pattern of education has evolved since the 1944 Act.
We have said many times, and again tonight, that the whole Conservative philosophy of education is gradualist. That is how we see our proposals operating. That is the essence of education in dealing with children and with the relationship of children and their teachers. It is wrong to try to establish a total approach, a one-solution approach.
In this organically developing system, what is important is the way in which parents and pupils have choice. We are firmly convinced that by the time young persons reach the age of 14, 15 or 16 they are beginning to decide what they want to do. They are taking a choice as to the road ahead which they wish to follow,

whether in a vocational or an academic direction and in what subjects. It is right and proper that they should have some say in deciding what courses they should take.
We go beyond that and say that the natural corollary involves having a choice of school. It seems inevitable, in the light of public expenditure forecasts and the intentions of the present Government, and of any other Government for the foreseeable future, to limit public expenditure, that the secondary school will be far from comprehensive, if that description means that it will be able to take pupils of all abilities and of the whole ability range, offering as wide a range of courses as all those abilities require.
Can any hon. Member foresee a situation in which all comprehensive schools will offer the courses necessary to meet all ranges of ability among all their pupils? That would involve their having the whole social and economic range of their areas, since a neighbourhood comprehensive reflects the social environment of its area—unless there were gerrymandering of catchment areas. Comprehensive schools, however, will not all be the same. This must be common ground, because teachers teach differently and have different approaches. A headmaster can establish the tone of his school, and each headmaster will have a different approach.
The most important point is what I call the inheritance factor. When a comprehensive school is created, it is an amalgam of other schools. If it is formed of two secondary modern schools, especially in a bad social area, or a deprived urban or rural area, it will be a different creation from what would be formed if the amalgam was of a secondary modern and a grammar school. If there is an amalgamation of secondary modern schools, where will be the teachers with degrees and high qualifications? When a grammar school is included, the inheritance factor will provide specialist teachers, language laboratories and the rest.
Secondary modern schools may have finer vocational traditions, with better woodwork and metalwork shops, and a finer career approach than grammar schools. We have the makings of a diversified system of secondary education. This is not something to scorn, avoid,


change or abolish. It is good and should be positively encouraged. With current financial limitations, it will not be easy to build new facilities and to even out the disparities in specialist staffs at various schools.
The Minister of State and the Secretary of State have recognised in the past few months—not before time—that there is a great shortage of specialised teachers, particularly of mathematics and modern languages. We have urged the Government that instead of slashing across the board the supply of qualified teachers, we need some selectivity so that we promote the areas where there are shortages. The day is far distant when we shall not be short of these specialists.
Are we to throw young people with great potential in certain areas to the dogs? Are we to condemn them to schools in which their potential, whether vocational or academic, will not be fully developed? Why should we be embarrassed at the thought that some children are academically better than others? No country can survive unless it makes the best use of its academic talents.
We must make a positive virtue of differences in schools and let children get on and develop in their own way. That should not mean that a bright child should have to go to a school which has no academic stimulus. The Government have abolished the option of direct grant schools, and this will have a particularly serious effect in urban areas where we find neighbourhood ghetto schools with no academic stimulus. Youngsters who show potential at, say, the age of 14 cannot now use the escape hatch of direct grant schools like Bristol, Manchester or Leeds Grammar Schools, when the neighbourhood comprehensive school may not be able to draw out their potential.
The inevitable consequence of rejecting what I would argue is the mythical concept of comprehensive schools is to switch to the idea of a comprehensive "service" to the community, which is a phrase from the 1944 Act. Therefore, within a given area there would be a range of schools from which parents and pupils could make a choice.
For the life of me, I cannot see why the Government should have any objection to that approach. The objection

which came repeatedly in Committee is the most untenable of all—namely, that every age, aptitude and ability can be catered for in one school. That argument is what I have sought to demolish. That might be the Government's ultimate goal, but how can they be right?
11.0 p.m.
As well as the pragmatic and practical aspects, there remains the fundamental right of parents to have some say and choice. All of us have probably had many examples of people drawing our attention to the fact that their children show potential in a subject such as music. A case of this kind has come to my attention, and probably many hon. Members have had a similar experience. The parents know that a school in their area has a good music department as against the school which their child attends, where a teacher who is a specialist in another subject plays the piano for hymns and uses records.

Mr. Freud: The hon. Gentleman has said that the comprehensive school is one school. Does he say that a rainbow is of one colour or that a cold buffet is one dish?

Dr. Hampson: At times I have respect for the hon. Gentleman, but on this occasion he cannot possibly have listened to my argument. I began by saying that we accepted that comprehensive schools would all be different. I was not saying that they were uniform.

Mr. Freud: The hon. Gentleman said "one school".

Dr. Hampson: I said that the Government seem to believe that the answer to all education problems is to have one school. We say, on the contrary, that acknowledgment should be given to the need for a variety of schools which give parents and pupils an option.
If all schools are to be integrated and interdependent, the system will require flexibility. It will require a more flexible attitude on the part of local education authorities. For example, in the case I have cited, the parents of the child who is considered to have potential in music feel that he is not being catered for sufficiently in his present school. As one of the new clauses suggests, that might even involve the transfer of the


child across the boundaries of the education authority into the school of another authority.
Many local education authorities have moved into that sort of system. They are giving a greater flexibility of choice. They are more prepared to consider transfers. That approach, however, is far from standard. It is so fundamental and impartant a principle that we feel it should be part of our education legislation.
There is no reason to suggest that a system which offered the choice I have described would not work. However, the Government stand on the principle that it would be wrong to recognise differences in schools to the point at which some specialise in certain subjects and others specialise in other subjects. We deny that the Government are taking the right position. We see no reason for there not being specialism.
The Government may say that it would not be practical to move pupils around, but it happens in Winnipeg and other parts of Canada and in the United States. There is no reason for its not happening here. The Minister of State said on many occasions in Committee that we were paying lip service to Section 76—namely, parental choice. He asked what we meant and how we would operated our system. Tonight we have given him some answers within a broad framework.
The commitment is enshired in the principle that parents shall have the right to express a preference. That is set out in New Clause 37. It provides that
Parents shall have the right to express a preference regarding which of the authority's maintained schools they would like their child to attend".
Surely they should have that right each year.
We have had much vociferousness from the Government's Left wing, but basically the Government have to realise that there is a problem, especially in important subjects such as mathematics. There is a perpetual decline. In 1961 The Times stated that urgent action was necessary to stop the decline in standards in mathematics and the declining number of mathematic students at university. The whole problem starts at the lower level, beginning at primary school and continues to university level. Universities

now have remedial classes in mathematics and languages. The need has been recognised. It is surely sensible, however, to adopt the sensible proposals which we put forward as a first step to monitoring what is happening in junior and secondary schools, proposals which were enshrined in the Bullock Report. It is not surprising that the Government do not want to debate that report. They do not believe in the basic principles that it propounded.
The next stage is to use parents to try to get an improvement in the standards of schools. They know their children. Indeed, one can hardly turn round these days without hearing the anxiety of parents about what is happening to their children. If every year they had the right to exercise a preference whether they were happy with their school or whether there was another school which they thought more suitable for their children, I should have thought there would be pressure on the schools to ensure that their standards met the expectations and requirements of parents. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) said "That is absolute rubbish" or words to that effect.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman misheard me. I said "That is absolute double think". Will he tell us how he can rationalise the remarks he has been making about parents selecting schools of their choice with the situation that we debated earlier in Tameside, where parents did just that, because his friends on the local council washed it out?

Dr. Hampson: I deny what the hon. Gentleman said. If I got sidetracked into that argument, Mr. Speaker would not be pleased, even at this hour of the night, which is yet young, because we have already gone over that matter. It is not double think at all, because it works. It works in a number of places throughout the world.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): Subsection (1) of the new clause provides that
a local education authority shall provide the opportunity for parents to express their preference of secondary school formally, and in writing, at least six months prior to the date of commencement of that child's secondary schooling.


The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) seems highly relevant. I suggest that, if the hon. Gentleman is to be honest with the House tonight, he should deal with the point that was put to him—"at least six months"? How far away is September in Manchester?

Dr. Hampson: I am not clear what the Minister is trying to say. If he feels that there is a problem with the period of six months, I am sure that having accepted the principle, he is capable of changing it. On the other hand, if he is trying to draw me into the Tameside debate again at this stage, I do not think that would be appropriate, as I am sure Mr. Speaker would agree.

Mr. Noble: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it permissible for an hon. Member to state an argument in one direction on a principle and then to reverse the principle when it suits him?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has been done many times, but I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is doing it.

Dr. Hampson: That is very kind of you, Mr. Speaker. I did not think that I was doing so either. The hon. Member for Rossendale is letting his hair down this evening. Obviously he was muzzled by his hon. Friend in Committee. Never mind. We appreciate that he has such a marginal seat that he has to keep stirring on any issue he can. The idea that parents have and can exercise the right is far from impracticable, because it operates.
New Clause 38 would put the onus on local education authorities to inform parents of their right to express a preference regarding the maintained schools in which their children are being educated or to which they could go. There is no reason why that should not be done. It is an easy thing to do. It can be done by notes sent home via the children. In Winnipeg a television advertisement is broadcast. I am not suggesting that we should necessarily do that. It is important, however, that the local education authority should inform parents that they have this right, otherwise we shall not get them involved in the education of their children to the degree that we want.
Frankly, parents have been conditioned by a system which has virtually ostracized

them for many years. They have all been accustomed to what is in many ways a virtue in our system—that the headmaster is autonomous in the school and the teacher is sacrosanct in the classroom. But all too often that has meant that the parent has been kept out and has not been told, let alone consulted, about what happens to the child in the school. It is very important that the local education authority should remind parents of their rights on a regular basis.
In support of this I cite the study done by Lynch and Pimlott at Southampton University, produced in February this year under the title "Parents and Teachers". Their main conclusion was that:
The majority of parents have little desire to interfere in the internal running of the school.
They go on to say:
But there is firm evidence to suggest that many parents would welcome greater information, consultation and involvement in their child's education than is available to them at the moment.
Frankly, I believe that that is an understatement. We all know how deeply felt this is. There has to be a formula for releasing those tremendous energies which lie in the parents and in the family, which should be involved in the education of the children, so that anxieties may be relieved in regard to standards in certain areas.

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the most successful schools in the State sector are those with parent-teacher associations, where there is this involvement?

Dr. Hampson: That is right. I have been to Glasgow, and it is refreshing to find that the Scots are taking such an interest in the debate. I met people in the university there who had made a point of stimulating parent-teacher associations in the worst areas of Glasgow, with remarkable effect. From next to none these associations have grown to over 100 in number, and they are playing a very important role in the schools. It can be done provided there is the motivation. In many areas it is not there, and the catalyst must be somewhere else. In such cases the catalyst, as we suggest in our new clause, should be the local education authority, which would inform the parents of their rights and also supply them with the appropriate forms, as necessary.
The situation might arise in which a very large number of parents started off wanting the same schools. That is an inevitable aspect of it. It is nothing to be pooh-poohed or criticised, because parents reflect the community feelings about the reputations of schools.
Standards rise and fall in schools, often with the exchange and retirement of staff. The tone of a school can change. I have known schools which over many years have moved from traditional methods to very progressive methods, or vice versa. The sizes of schools also change. Schools in certain growth areas become bigger. A child may be ill at ease in a big, amorphous school and should have the right to move. But a large number of parents and children may want a particular school.
There has to be the option for the local education authority not just to give a totally wide-ranging choice but possibly to establish a particular zone or catchment area for a school. In that way there would be a prioritising, so to speak, of the choice, either geographically or, better still, as a catchment from the primary schools. When the child attended a feeder school, the parent would have the first preference over those outside the area in requesting a particular school, of whatever sort it might be.
Hon. Members may not be particularly in support of the actual details. We put down the new clauses because we have often been accused of not having details or proposals but merely a loose commitment to the rights of parents to have a say. It is more than that. Of course we believe that parents have a say, but we also believe that it is perfectly feasible for that say to be exercised in the choice of schools, both between those in the maintained sector and those outside it and between those within the maintained sector, because it is in the maintained sector—and now, indeed, in comprehensive schools in the maintained sector, that the majority of parents are now educating their children.
11.15 p.m.
Therefore, we say that parents have a right to have some choice. Parents have a right to know. In later proposals of ours we shall come to knowing about schools, so that parents are not only told

that they have a right to choose but have a basis upon which to make their choice and know what is going on in other schools. We want to see that the figures are published and the prospectuses of the schools are made available to them. Also, parents would have a right as later new clauses make evident, to appeal against whatever decision the local education authority came to on their particular claims.
Not only do we think this to be of fundamental importance, and not only have we demonstrated that it is practicable because it works elsewhere. It has an impeccable pedigree of support—none other than the Secretary of State's present Parliamentary Private Secretary. That is not the rather more attractive one of the pair at present with us on the Front Bench, but the other one, who, I have no doubt, has his attractions. He has certainly been in the job on and off for many years. When he was not in the job, in an article some time ago in The Guardian he recommended this sort of parental choice. Why? It was because he thought that it was healthy to have parents involved in the school. He thought that it exercised a yardstick by which standards could be improved. He even dared to use the term "the use of the market".
Of the whole of this country, excluding Scotland but including Wales, 82 per cent. of the population live in urban areas. I fully accept that almost inevitably there will be less choice in rural areas under this system, where one has great travelling distances. There is a great problem in rural areas. However, as the vast bulk of people live in urban areas where there will be a wide variety of schools, this system could work.
I am not quite sure on what basis one determines what is a good school, but if there is a definition of a good school what it is not is anything to do with overall structure. What we are all about is surely the quality of education. That is what we are all after in legislating in this place. Our condemnation of the Bill is that it is not concerned with the qualitative aspect of education. It is concerned purely and simply with structure and with reorganisation of structure. A good school transcends structure. A good school thrives on imaginative leadership, on an enthusiastic staff committed to a


curriculum and on adequate resources—which are all too likely now not to be available. It also depends upon the full support of governors and parents.
I hope that the new clauses receive the approval of the House. In debates in Committee the Government have always paid lip service to their belief in the right of parents to have a say. They have said time and again at every stage "Yes, we want consultation with parents. Yes, Section 76 means something." Let the Government now prove it.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I know that the hour is late, but the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) did not do credit to his intelligence, his expertise in education, or his liberalism. I have rarely heard in this House such a vacuous and misleading speech. Throughout his speech the hon. Gentleman did not address himself to the details of the new clauses. I am scarcely surprised, because on the only occasion when I drew to his attention one of those details, he said what he so often said in Committee: "If the Minister does not like it, the Minister can put something else there." He said that repeatedly in Committee, and he has said it again tonight. However, it is not the task of a responsible Opposition to say "This is just a try on and if the Government do not like it, so long as they put forward something in the same broad area, we shall be perfectly content."
The hon. Gentleman stressed that throughout his speech. This was typical of the speeches that he made in Committee, when he was constantly trying to conceal from his hon. Friends just how liberal were his own educational views, honestly expressed, and the broad differences between him and the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson).
The hon. Gentleman again repeated the advantage which would arise from the system to the child with ability—the child who can. The hon. Gentleman said that repeatedly in his speech and the whole House heard him. Never once did he mention what happens to the child who cannot. Never once did he say what happens if one concentrates teaching resources entirely upon those able in the subject to the disadvantage of those with lesser ability in that subject.
Let me turn to the details of the new clause. New Clause 4 purports to establish a new system of responsibility for admission of pupils to schools. At the moment that responsibility rests with the local education authorities or the school governors or, depending on the school's articles of government, with the school governors specifically. But the Education Acts do not specify how school places are to be allocated, or how parents are to choose between the places available.
What does the hon. Gentleman put forward in place of the present system? I shall pass over subsection (1) of the new clause fairly rapidly. In particular I shall pass over that part which I quoted earlier—that there should be a period of at least six months before admission when parents shall name their choice of school.
The House will have noted that the hon. Gentleman was unwilling to comment on the actions of his own party in another part of the country. In any event many LEA's already comply with the requirements of subsection (1). Subsection (2) is of much greater interest.

Mr. Peter Morrison: If I understand the Minister to say that he approves of LEA's requiring parents to put their children's names down six months before admission, why does he not believe that this right should be enshrined in the law?

Mr. Fowler: I am not happy about the phrase "putting their children's names down". I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to a school which he attended, the system which operated there and the phrases used there, rather than the system which operates for the majority of parents. But I take the point. However, local authorities at present ask parents what their choice of school would be, particularly within the comprehensive system. There is very little point in asking parents within a totally selective system what is their choice of school, because that choice is determined by an examination at 11-plus. Therefore, the suggestion is only relevant within a comprehensive system.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at least in London education authority


areas when parents are asked to give their first choice it is not actually their first choice? They are expected to go into a lottery to try to pick which school their children are likely to go to. If they do not get that school, they are put right at the bottom of the list. Can he not see the point of allowing them to choose months or even years ahead the school they would like if they had the chance?

Mr. Fowler: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Nothing in the new clause would affect that situation in the slightest degree.
The hon. Member just said that parents put down the name of the school they think they will get. It does not make the slightest difference whether the system is enshrined in the law or whether it is operated informally as it is throughout the country. It is not changed by being written into the law. I know that the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) is pained by what I am saying. If he wants to intervene I shall give way, because we had such a good relationship in Committee, but I do not think that he has a new point to raise.
Subsection (2) of the new clause gives the ultimate power of admission to a head teacher:
Where a county secondary school is oversubscribed following the exercise of parental choice on application, a list of all the applicants to that school shall be sent by the local education authority to the head teacher, together with the appropriate reports and records for each applicant, and it shall be open to that head teacher, in conjunction with the governors of his school, to choose from a list of applicants entries to that school".
So all power resides—

Mr. Peter Morrison: Read the rest.

Mr. Fowler: I shall happily do so:
…and he may, if desired, call for interview such applicants as he thinks fit in the same manner as is customary for the voluntary aided schools.
The hon. Member seems to think that we are still on the clause dealing with literacy tests.
Those words have only one meaning —that all power shall reside with the head teacher. The Opposition continually said in Committee that the great evil of the Bill was that it took away the

power of LEAs. Where is power for the LEAs in this subsection? It has totally disappeared and is passed to the head teacher. All we are left with is a perfunctory reference to the head teacher acting "in conjunction with" the governors, a power that I could not begin to interpret.

Mr. Cormack: That is surely a distortion. There is all the difference in the world between a local authority having autonomy in the policy in its own area and a head teacher having autonomy in the school to which he has been appointed by the local authority, and there is nothing incompatible between the two.

Mr. Fowler: No one suggested that head teachers should not have autonomy within the schools to which they have been appointed by the local authority. But we are talking about admissions policy, which is a major element in the responsibilities of LEAs. The Opposition propose to take that responsibility away and to offer it to head teachers.

Mr. Cormack: No.

Mr. Fowler: It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying, "No, I want the words to mean something other than what they patently mean."

Mr. Cormack: But this idea already works well in voluntary aided schools. I have children at a State voluntary aided school where the head teacher has this right. It works well and the spirit in the school is better than at many others.

Mr. Fowler: But we are not talking purely about voluntary aided schools.

Mr. Peter Morrison: But we are, and it works.

Mr. Fowler: The new clause does not talk about voluntary aided schools in general. We shall come to them in a moment, because the system that the hon. Gentleman talks about is not general. In voluntary aided schools the power of admission in general resides with the governors. Whether they wish to delegate it to the head teacher is a different question. It does not reside with the head teacher any more than at the moment the power of admission resides with the head teacher in a county secondary school. There is only one meaning to


the words of the amendment—the Opposition want to take away LEAs' power to determine admissions policy in their own areas.
Subsection (3) essentially contains little change from the present position, except that once again the head teacher is put in the position at present occupied by the local education authority or the governors. This time we do not even get a courteous reference to the governors.
11.30 p.m.
Then comes subsection (4) in this long list of subsections determining where power and responsibility shall lie:
For individual cases and exceptional circumstances"—
here the local education authority comes into its own—
the local education authority shall have the right to override a head teacher's non-acceptance of a pupil, as provided in subsection (2) above, and insist on the registration of a pupil at that school.
I am glad that the local education authority has some residual power under the Opposition's proposal. The subsection refers to:
individual cases and exceptional circumstances".
What about the general run of circumstances and the general admissions policy? The LEA is left with precisely nothing on the basis of the clause.
Finally, there is subsection (5):
Head teachers of voluntary schools shall retain the right of admission to the school, whether or not the school is over-subscribed, and may call for reports, records, and interviews as may be required.
I alluded to that a moment ago when the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) intervened. "Head teachers shall retain", but in general they do not have that right except so far as it is delegated to them by the governors of the school. The wording of the clause is clearly deficient.
I do not intend to detain the House by talking at length about the other clauses, which are all as deficient as the one with which I have just dealt. I suppose that I should say something about each of them, if only to make the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) happy. I sat through 35 Sittings of the Committee to gratify the hon. Member for Dorking, and I do not want to break that habit.
Let us look briefly at New Clause 6, which reads as follows:
Local education authorities shall provide for the transfer of children from one secondary school to another, either within or outside the area of that local education authority, in accordance with the wishes of the parents and the changing requirements of the child; and such transfer of children shall be with the agreement of the head teacher of the receiving school.
The clause is designed to complement New Clause 4 by dealing with transfer cases, although the hon. Gentleman did not say so. Successive Secretaries of State, in the light of legal advice, have expected local education authorities and governors to observe, when parents ask for their children to be transferred, principles based on the criteria of Section 37 of the 1944 Act. The effect of this is that the parent's wish will normally be respected except where the proposed new school would be unsuitable to the child or his attendance there would involve unreasonable expense to the LEA—or, in particular circumstances, the proposed change of school would be inexpedient in the interests of the child.
The clause would remove from the transfer process every voice except that of the parent and the head teacher of the receiving school. There is no suggestion that their decisions should have any regard to questions of resources. In Committee we became used to the Opposition's putting forward proposals which would entail considerable but unquantifiable increases in public expenditure. That is what we have come to expect of the Opposition. There is no suggestion that the decision should have any re and to educational policy or to any other criterion save the wishes of the parent and the head teacher—not even the interests of the child, except for the vague reference to his "changing requirements", whatever that phrase is supposed to mean.

Mr. Skeet: Would the hon. Gentleman take into account the position of Asians being transferred to another school? The parents may have strong views for sociological reasons. Is that not a criterion which should be considered?

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that it is a criterion which is relevant but it does not seem to me remotely relevant to the new clause.

Mr. Skeet: Read the new clause.

Mr. Fowler: I have read it out to the House. Again, I stress that there is no place in it for any criterion save the wishes of the parents and the head teachers. Once again, the function of the local education authority is as an office handling papers. It would be open to a head teacher to accept any number of children whose parents wished them to transfer from other schools, irrespective of all the normal rational considerations. The new clause would make total nonsense of the administration of the maintained schools system, and I am sure that the House will reject it totally on those grounds.

Sir G. Sinclair: Would the hon. Gentleman modify his statement slightly? He tried to make the point that the new clause made no mention of educational considerations and that it would be entirely a matter for the parents' wishes. As a parent, he must surely accept that a parent takes great cognisance of the varying educational needs of the child at the time, and that between that child, the parents and the head teacher there is surely a very good assessment of the educational needs of the child. There is no need to put it more explicitly in the new clause.

Mr. Fowler: As so often, I find it hard to dissent from the general principle of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I agree that parents know their own children—at least some of them do. Some head teachers know their children in their schools. But that in no way justifies a new clause which would write the local education authority and the governors out of the administration of admissions and transfer policy within the maintained system. I agree as a matter of principle with the hon. Gentleman but that does not mean that we can accept the extraordinary words of the new clause.

Mr. Cormack: If the hon. Gentleman had to say whether the parents, the local education authority or the head teacher were the most important, would he put the parents or the local education authority at the top of the list?

Mr. Fowler: I would not put any of them at the top of the list. I would put the child at the top. The interests of the

children must be paramount in our consideration of the Bill. [Interruption.] I am not surprised by the protests from the Opposition. Many hon. Members opposite are not motivated by a defence of the interests of children but have other motives which I should not spell out at this moment, but they are clear enough.
New Clause 27 would not break new ground. The present legislation on the admission of pupils to schools is administered in such a way that parental choice of school will always be upheld unless the local education authority can show either that the school selected is unsuitable for the child's age, ability or aptitude, or that his attendance there would cause unreasonable expense to the authority. If the home authority can offer a place at a suitable school within a reasonable travelling distance, it may well be relunctant to pay the extra-district fee, in which case the other authority may be reluctant to admit a child to the school as it is not going to receive the extra-district fee. We hope that the authorities will be flexible about admissions from the areas of adjoining authorities to fill marginal places remaining in schools close to their boundaries after the needs of their own areas have been met.
Nothing in the new clause would change the position, and parents would have no greater choice than they enjoy at present. Indeed, the addition of this clause would only raise false expectations, and I urge the House to reject it.
Really, I think that the less said about New Clause 28, the better. Parents are free to choose between the available maintained schools to the extent which is compatible with proper education, and the sensible use of local resources. That is the way in which Secretaries of State of both parties have administered the present law. It is not clear whether this new clause is intended to sweep away the present limitations of the law, and allow the parents' right to choose a school to take precedence over all other criteria, including the educational interests of the child. If this is not the intention of the new clause, it appears to add nothing to what already exists in relation to the wishes of parents.
The other new clause adds precisely nothing to New Clause 4, and I pass over them in silence.
What we have heard tonight is a speech of some interest—although not always of total candour—of Opposition policy. But the speech bore very little relation to the suggested new clauses. These new clauses are such patent nonsense that I hope we shall spend very little time on them.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) on the way he introduced the new clause. If the Minister cannot understand what motivates us in supporting it, I can tell him that we support it not for party political purposes but simply because so many of our constituents have come to us week after week with tragic reasons and cases in which they have been prevented by local education authorities from sending their children to the school of their choice. This is something which has been happening for years—ever since the 1944 Education Act, in fact.
We believe that the time has come to put it right. I welcome the seven new clauses which we are debating. Not one of them would cost the Government an extra penny, and they would fulfil the wishes of many parents and their children. Another good reason for introducing them and for including them in the Bill is that they would stimulate a welcome element of competition among local education authorities. If we can stimulate this competition, it is only for the good of education and the good of the child.
I can give two examples of depicting why it is essential to give parents a much wider choice of the schools to which their children go. The first relates to a system of education which we have in Leicestershire which is known as the Leicestershire plan. It is a form of comprehensive education which is very popular among the parents of the children who are educated under it.
A few years ago, parts of the county of Leicester which operated the plan were due to be transferred into the city of Leicester which did not operate it. The change arose from proposals by the Boundary Commissioners. The parents of the children who were covered by the plan wrote me nearly 5,000 letters saying that they wanted to remain under the

plan. If we had at that time had this Bill with New Clause 6 included, so great would have been the flood of applications from parents in the city to get their children into the county plan schools that the city would have been compelled to introduce a similar plan to avoid its schools being emptied.
My other example relates to Countesthorpe College, which was within my constituency until a couple of years ago. In this case there was grave disquiet among the parents of many of the children at the college over the manner of education their children were receiving. Eventually I led a deputation to the then Minister of Education in relation to the county's view that parents had no freedom of choice but had to send their children to Countesthorpe. We appealed under Section 76 of the 1944 Act.
I know from what happened that the only way in which parents who were desperately anxious about the system at the college were able to exercise a choice and remove their children from what they regarded as a perilous system of education was to move their home lock, stock and barrel to another catchment area.
Perhaps I may refer to Section 76 of the 1944 Act. New Clause 4 provides parents with an opportunity to express a preference, but that only emphasises the intentions of those who instituted the 1944 Act. Section 76, under the heading
Pupils to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents",
states
In the exercise and performance of all powers and duties conferred and imposed on them by this Act the Minister and local education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.
That was one of the fundamental principles of the 1944 Act. I do not need to remind the House that, if a parent thought that that was being ignored by the local education authority, the right to appeal to the Minister still exists.
I support the new clauses because they put into black and white that which should have been put into black and white years ago. I prefer the wording in New Clause


6, which relates to the transfer of pupils between schools, to the wording in New Clause 27, because that gives local education authorities the right of veto. My constituents and I have learned that, if one gives aducation authorities the right of veto, parental choice disappears. New Clause 6 does not give that right of veto. It leaves it to the parents and intaking headmasters to decide, but New Clause 27 requires the consent of the local education authority, which is undesirable.
All hon. Members have heard of examples of the tragic cases of children who are not able to go to the school of their parents' choice. Only last week a silly decision was taken over a child on the southern fringes of Leicestershire who wanted to attend a school in Northamptonshire and who had been accepted for a special course. That child's transfer was vetoed by the Leicestershire education authority and she now has to attend a Leicester city school, which means that her journey time is trebled. That was a stupid decision, and it is that sort of situation that we are trying to put right.
The group of new clauses enshrines the principle of choice by establishing a parent's right of choice on the grounds of religion or curriculum. A parent might wish to send a child to a school which specialises in music, the arts or sport. A parent might have a relative who sends a child to a particular school and might want to follow in the same path. It might be more convenient to send a child to a particular school because the parent works outside an area, and it might be easier for that child to be dropped off at a particular school. There may be no apparent reason for a choice of school, but a parent must be allowed to make the choice. A parent may wish a child to go to a school with strong discipline or send a child to a school like Countesthorpe, which is run on a tribal basis.
We do not think it right that the State should dictate in this matter. We support a policy of building schools to satisfy parental demand rather than a policy which involves local education authority direction.

Mr. Anthony Steen (Liverpool, Waver-tree): Will my hon. Friend give us details of this interesting tribal system?

Mr. Farr: Out of deference to you and the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall not go into more detail, though not because I do not have a detailed knowledge of how it operates, with its moot, which governs all day-to-day activities in the college. But it is not in my constituency any more, and it has not been since the February 1974 election. Probably without my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) being present it would not be right to dwell upon it. I shall not be tempted by my hon. Friend, but I shall speak to him afterwards in the Smoking Room.
The Socialists are great believers in directions. It is so much more convenient for bureaucrats, particularly Socialist bureaucrats, to direct people hither and thither. It is more convenient if parents and pupils conform to a pattern, and it is very inconvenient if they do not all wish to be herded together in the same pupil flow. The Labour Party has always rejected customer and consumer choice. One can think, for example, of its stupid outlook over television. For years it resisted having more than the BBC State channels. That outlook is reflected even today in its attitude to competition with British Airways by any independent operator in this country.
The same applies to education. Apparently the Socialists are not even prepared to allow us to pass this group of new clauses, which would promote some competition within the State system of education. It is a disgrace that after 32 years of operation of the Butler Education Act we have a Socialist Government still resisting one of the cornerstones of that great Act—namely, the thesis of parental choice.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: In his last few remarks the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) spoilt his whole speech. They were nonsense. The large majority of people, including hon. Members, recognise the need for as much parental choice as possible. If a parent is sending his child to primary school and School A uses traditional teaching methods while School B uses experimental methods, he should have as much right as possible to choose by which of those two types of teaching method he wishes his child to be taught. I would fight strongly to send my child to a school where the


method was relatively traditional, because I believe in that method. Other people have different beliefs.
I accept that we want as much choice as possible, but I want to show the weakness of New Clause 4. Subsection (2) says that parents will make their first choice. It will then be left to the head teacher to decide which of the children who have chosen his school he will accept. The subsection says that
Where a county secondary school is oversubscribed following the exercise of parental choice
the head teacher shall make the decision.
I speak as an ex-head teacher. The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) rightly said that there were some good schools and some less good schools. There may well be two schools side by side, one with a relatively good reputation and the other with a less good reputation.
12 midnight.
It may well be that the mass of parental choice would be for the school of good reputation. That would be natural and normal. If one is to leave the choice of which pupils enter the school to the head teacher, the temptation must be for that head teacher to choose the best academic children out of the applicants, or possibly the most polite, or to use some other criterion, the head teacher will, for sociological reasons, choose the best pupils, perhaps on academic grounds, so that the school will be filled with the best pupils, chosen on academic lines, and the others who are unsuccessful will go to the school in category three, the under-subscribed school. The school with the good reputation will be able to improve it further, the other school will never have the chance to get out of the rut and to improve its reputation.
That is why a decision on these lines must be left to the education authority which can try to ensure that a range of abilities and social classes goes to each school to ensure that each school has a proper opportunity, with the right material, to improve its reputation.

Mr. John Page: I am listening with great interest and, as usual, with admiration, to what the hon. Member is saying, except for his conclusion. Does he not feel that by taking away the parental choice of school and giving it back into the hands of the education

authority so that there shall be a kind of levelling he will emphasise and continue the mediocrity of the less good school? Does he not feel that this emphasises that one should improve the standards of the lower school and possibly change the head?

Mr. Mitchell: No. In the over-subscribed school, if it is a school of between 500 and 1,000, somebody has to make a choice. All I am saying is that it should not be left entirely to the head teacher, who will automatically choose the best 500, so that one will get an elitist school. The education authority should have a say so that one gets a spread and a different 500. It is essential that we do everything to ensure that we do not get one group of schools which becomes elitist and another group which never get the opportunity of getting out of their situation.

Dr. Boyson: Reference has been made to the effect on child, family and parent of the question of choice, but little reference has been made to the effect on the school itself. There is a world of difference between running a school where parents have chosen the school and have been interviewed by the head, where the school is one of volunteers and running a school, even with the same people in it, and a school of the same children who have been directed there by faceless bureaucrats.
There is no doubt that the morale of the public school system—I have never been there, never taught in them, and nor have my children been there—arises from the ability to recruit good children and to get the good standards which many of those schools maintain, is because of the motivation of the children, knowing that their parents have chosen the school. Parent and family choose the kind of school where the values are the same as those of the home and there is no gap between the values of home and school. But if the parent is directed to send the child to a local neighbourhood, unhappy, school, to which the child does not want to go, the child does not like the methods there.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) had a distinguished teaching career and that there was heavy over-subscribing at his school. People probably queued for miles to get their children in. The best way


of improving a bad school would be to threaten it with closure. As long as it has a guaranteed audience, there will be no improvements.
There are schools in London, which I shall name if anyone wishes me to do so, though it will do the schools no good, which have been dependent on a conscript audience for 15 or 20 years and where more than one in five of the children did not want to go there. Nothing tangible has been done to improve standards so that parents and children might want to go to the schools.
We are aware of teacher unemployment—

Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirling-shire): The hon. Gentleman should go back to teaching.

Dr. Boyson: We welcome a new hon. Member to our debate, but we do not welcome the utter moral arrogance shown by some hon. Members opposite who think that they are the only ones with passion and concern. They have a kind of religious purity about it. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) wishes to intervene, I shall give way. Otherwise he should stop mumbling into the wind.
Reference was made by the Minister of State to the effect that most parents do not know what is best for their children and that the bureaucrats in local education offices know better.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I did not say that. We shall make better progress if he does not distort our arguments.

Dr. Boyson: That is the view we thought the Minister was putting forward. If it was not, I am glad.
We believe in people. We believe that if we give people responsibility, they will make better decisions than clerks and bureaucrats. We believe in people; the Government believe in mandarins.
Our view of participation is not that people should sit on powerless committees, but that they should have a choice of schools, where they live, and the other things that matter in their lives

Mr. Flannery: If the 11-plus exam had taken place in Tameside as the hon.

Gentleman advocated, 20 per cent. of the children would have gone to grammar schools. What choice would the other 80 per cent. of parents have had?

Dr. Boyson: I always enjoy the interventions of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). They show that we on this side have a lot of educating to do in getting our view over. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) must stop making interruptions from a sedentary position.

Dr. Boyson: If there had been an 11-plus in Tameside this year, at least 20 per cent. of parents would have had a choice. I should like a system in which 100 per cent. of parents had a choice, but Labour Members want a system where no one has a choice.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Dr. Boyson: I give way to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble).

Mr. Noble: Will the hon. Gentleman please face the facts about Tameside? If he examines the situation he will note, according to the figures that have been produced, that 88 per cent. of parents would have had their first choice under the old system and over 96 per cent. would have had their first or second choice. Under the 11-plus system, only approximately 20 per cent. of children will go to the schools that their parents have chosen.

Dr. Boyson: I know about the system of parental choice in London. The heads of primary schools received letters instructing them to tell parents that their children could not go to school X unless they lived, for example, on a specified side of the Holloway Road. If the parents did not live on that side of the road, they did not get the choice. That was parental choice.
I refer to the Tameside figures again—I trust that I do so for the last time—so that we shall all remember them. It was claimed that 88 per cent. of parents got their first choice. If we believe the Press release from the local education authority only 360 of the 3,000 children did not get their first choice. I now repeat some figures that can be checked. In fact,


I know that they have been checked by parts of the media.
A letter was sent out by the Conservative authority asking parents whether they were satisfied with their first choice of school. If they wanted a different choice of school, they were asked to reply to the authority and to give the details. The 3,000 letters were sent out a fortnight ago—I know that it is time that I had more up-to-date figures—and within two days there were 700 replies. There were not just 360 replies from those who are supposed not to have had their first choice, but 700 replies asking for a different choice of school. Many people did not ask for a grammar school, but a change from one secondary modern to another.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter and allowing me to demonstrate how artificial parental choice is in the present system.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Mr. Gerry Fowler rose—

Mr. Boyson: I shall explain what choice means. It means that those who want single-sex schools can have them. It means that children can participate in certain sports if their parents want them to do so. The difference in my native Lancashire between rugger schools and soccer schools was fundamental, depending on which town or street one came from. Reference has been made to discipline and whether parents are prepared to let their children travel, as well as the question of family relationships. These things matter to ordinary families living in ordinary streets. It is not elitist to desire to give such people the maximum possible choice.
I made the point earlier that with a falling birth rate we shall be going through a period when there will be vacancies amounting to 20 per cent. of the total number of places in our secondary schools. That will be the position in about five or six years. What will happen then? Will the present system allow more choice to be given to parents? The answer is "No". The local authorities will close their older schools. In many areas they will keep open the concrete monstrosities that nobody wants.
This is the very time to test what parents want if one believes in parents. If there are those who do not believe in

parents but in bureaucrats, let us identify them. But if we believe in parents, who breed children and normally look after them better than any bureaucrat, now is the time to test what parents want.
That will test the honesty of Labour Members. I know the honesty of most of them and I do not challenge it, but let us see how far they are prepared to give parental choice. The forthcoming vacancies mean that for the first time for a long time it will be possible to give real and genuine parental choice throughout the length and breadth of many parts of the country.
My only other point—I realise that time is getting on and there are many other clauses that we want to examine as the week progresses—is to emphasise to whom children belong. I begin by saying what makes a good school. In most cases there is a good school when the children go there with the backing of the parents, when the parents share the school's values and give it their support.
12.15 a.m.
To whom do children belong? I suggest that 95 per cent. or 98 per cent. of parents look after their children better than anybody else does. They will make judgments on their children better than anybody else does. By all means let them consult the teachers on what is best for their children, but the decision should be theirs. After all, if a doctor tells a patient that he has appendicitis, it is for the patient to decide whether to have his appendix taken out. The patient has that right. Indeed, doctors sometimes make mistakes. Amazing things can happen in such situations.
Parents know their children. They have seen their development from birth. Advice should be made available to them —possibly through citizens' advice bureaux—but the choice must be theirs.
I am not maligning teachers. Most schools do their best for children, but they see only part of them in school. Schools see children as playing in the first eleven—the sports master will like that—or as getting good A-levels and a place at Cambridge.
I am sure that local education authorities are comprised of good people who behave well at home and who do not interrupt others when they are speaking. Apart from that, all they want is balanced


numbers in the schools. They are not bleeding for individual children. They want balanced numbers. They can then go off home or to the golf club and live happily ever after. The only people who are really concerned about children and who want the best for them are the parents. Therefore, I should back the parents' choice of school against the experts and the bureaucrats.
Reference has been made to the right to transfer from one local education authority area to another. The right of continuance of transfer from one local education authority area to another was written into the London Government Act 1963. Members of Parliament for the areas affected have had to fight for every child concerned to get into different schools. Each local education authority has virtually built a barbed wire fence round its area and is concerned only to fill its schools. It is not concerned about the children at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] It is disgraceful. There is now almost no movement between areas. The right of transfer and of showing that parents and children matter more than anything else is important. It is for that reason that I support the new clauses.

Mr. David Hunt: My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) opened the debate on these new clauses in a reasonable way. One of the most depressing features about the Bill is the emphasis that it puts on compulsion and control. My hon. Friend referred to the real anxiety of parents at the present situation—in particular, the falling standards in schools.
We in this House should ask ourselves why parents are so anxious. Is it not because schools are now to be judged by this Government on whether they are politically acceptable rather than whether they are educationally sound? It is surely that paradox in the Government's approach that needs some clause or clauses to enshrine the rights of parents.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) quoted Section 76 of the Education Act 1944, because that Act laid great stress upon the rights of parents. But is it not a depressing fact that, much as we may search through the Bill, there is no mention of the word "parent", the word

"choice" or the word "freedom"? This must surely lead the House to accept these new clauses.
Parents are very worried indeed. In my constituency, in Wirral, we have very good schools. They are good not because they are politically acceptable but because they produce excellent results and very well educated children. The parents are very worried indeed, because if the Bill becomes law without any clause enshrining freedom of choice for parents those good schools will be compelled to change.
In this country our schools have evolved over a very large number of years. They are schools which enshrine differing standards, with differing emphasis on particular subjects, technical or academic, and with different emphasis on academic brilliance or practical ability. They have evolved over centuries.
The Government now seek to say that the comprehensive school is not just a good school—I accept that hypothesis—but that there can be no school other than a comprehensive, thereby sweeping away all the experience that has been built up through the centuries and imposing a hotch-pot solution in an area where parents have very grave reason already to fear that standards are falling.
The Bill, which is striving to drive us all through the same school, also comes at a time when there are little or no funds available to do the task that the Government expect local authorities to do. What is to be the result of this? I believe that the result will be the creation of what are known as monster schools—large schools on differing sites—which have been the hallmark of this very destructive Socialist policy that we have seen in education.
Some hon. Members may say that the larger the school the better, but the larger the school the less parental choice there is. That must follow. The larger school is not the better school. I know many parents who are very worried about the lack of control in a very large school. There is considerable time wasted. This affects both the staff and the pupils as they move between sites which are very far apart. There are also the traffic dangers involved in moving from place to place.
What about the unity of the school, the unity of the parents and the teachers,


of the teaching staff and the children, the ability to know the individual child and be able to name the individual child in the particular school? The discipline that a headmaster can engender by his personal knowledge of the pupil is essential in the system of education that we have today.
If hon. Members had attended the last debate, when we discussed minimum standards, they would have known of the very real anxieties of parents at the present time. In my constituency there is a school—other hon. Members probably have many similar schools in their own constituencies—called Pensby County Secondary School for Girls. If the Bill is passed it will be forced to amalgamate, thereby creating an amorphous mass of a school with well over 1,000 pupils. I think that that is far too large. Indeed, the fears of the parents are very real.
What the Government are seeking to do, apparently, is to destroy parental choice. The lack of reference in the Bill to parental freedom is very clear. When my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) asked the Minister of State whether he would put the parent or the local authority first, the Minister of State said "I would put the child first." I felt that in saying that he was expressing the view of the present Government that the Minister knows far better than parents and far better than local authorities who know their local area. He is the one to say how education should be conducted in every area throughout the country. He is the man who knows best.
All I say to the Minister is that the only achievement he is reaching is to play politics with the lives and education of children, because unless these new clauses are accepted Section 76 will be no more. We shall be compelled to have one uniform type of school throughout the country.
When the Prime Minister talks on television about preserving the basic freedoms, let him reflect on the fact that the present Government are destroying Section 76, destroying freedom of choice for parents and destroying one of the basic freedoms in this country.

Mr. John Page: You will be pleased to know, Mr. Speaker, that until about

an hour ago I had had rather a good day. On the whole, things had gone right. On listening to the speech of the Minister of State, however, I suddenly became unutterably depresed. His arrogant intellectual superiority was extremely evident. I was reminded very much of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who, like the Minister of State, is able to inculcate into the Opposition a sense of immediate anger and frustration as soon as she rises to speak. Recently a former Member of this House, Sir John Foster, chided the right hon. Lady on one occasion and gave her some advice which I should like, in a most friendly way, to pass on to the Minister of State. That is that, although we know how superior he is to the rest of us, the more stupid we are the more we hate being told we are stupid. To get our co-operation, it is ever so much easier for the hon. Gentleman to lead us by the hand than to bang us on the head.
That is the last direct reference to the Minister of State that I shall make, although I must add that his speech showed that he believes that the man in Curzon Street knows best; leave it to him and the chaps in the local education authorities, and let the parents, children and teachers get on with the job—because they will be dealt the hand and that is the hand they will have to play. [Interruption.] It is very interesting that Tribune Group Members are agreeing so much with the assessment of the speeches.
The only result of a refusal to accept Clause 4—I apologise, it is New Clause 4. I expect that there will be a few new clause fours before the present Prime Minister has finished his run. However, this New Clause 4 imposes upon the country as a whole the one-type neighbourhood comprehensive school. That is it, and that is the lot.
12.30 a.m.
The main result of this in Middlesex will be that the price of houses in my constituency go up by another £2,000. There is no doubt that, from the point of view of the intellectual and responsible attitude of the parents who live in Harrow, West, more and more people will want to send their children to the schools within my constituency boundaries. My own view is that parents should be given a greater choice, and


this is what we have put forward in the new clauses.
I was hoping that by now the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) would have returned while I made a witty rebuttal of his remarks. He said that comprehensive schools might not be uniformly good or bad but that in a comprehensive school one can have a complete total. He asked why one should think that the rainbow would comprise only one colour and why a cold buffet would have the taste of only one dish. I am thinking of why the rainbow should be only of one colour. I achieved an O-level in physics and I remember that if one shone a small lamp on to a prism the light passed through the prism, and when it came out on the other side, on to the white piece of paper, there were all the colours of the spectrum. I believe that the Government's policy is to compress all the colours of the spectrum back through the prism and to present simply one uniform white light. In regard to the cold buffet, I have a feeling that many of us who go to various dining rooms would find that this is exactly the case —that the dishes all taste the same, red herrings and others.
I beg the Secretary of State to come from his ivory tower and accept New Clause 27. The Minister of State said it would make absolutely no difference at all because the powers conferred by New Clause 27 already exist. However it would be a comfort to the parents if the Bill allowed children to enjoy a choice of schools outside the local education authority area.
I had to fight hard with the Hillingdon council to allow the children of one of my constituents to attend a school the playing fields of which actually bordered on to the garden of their home. It took about a year's fight for this to happen. Let the Bill allow parents to have that right. From the cost point of view, I believe that on a "knock-for-knock" basis it would not be too expensive to the different education authorities.
The Minister of State totally ignored one of the major parts of New Clause 28 —its reference to maintained schools. Perhaps this is because, under Clause 5(1) and (3) of the Bill, the Secretary of State will have power not to allow local authorities to send children to non-

maintained schools. Can we have a categorical assurance that he has no intention of removing the right of local authorities to send children to such schools if it is their wish?

Mr. Mulley: I have been so persuaded by the eloquence of Tory Members that we should enshrine the 1944 Act that I am restoring the situation with regard to expenditure outside the public sector to what it was in the 1944 Act—in other words, the local education authority has to get the approval of the Secretary of State for such expenditure.

Mr. Page: I hope that one of my hon. Friends who is better able to deal with the oracular utterances of the Secretary of State will comment on that, because I have a curious feeling that it is rather important.
Many of my constituents enjoy sending their children, aided by the local authority, to many excellent non-maintained schools in the area. They believe that it gives them choice and that this freedom should not be taken from them. If he will not accept New Clause 4, I beg the Secretary of State to accept New Clauses 27 and 28.

Sir George Sinclair: Let us get away for a moment from the details of these clauses. They are a serious attempt to recognise more clearly the responsibilities of parents and to encourage them to participate more fully in choosing schools for their young. My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) gave some vivid examples of how parents had been drawn into greater participation in various areas of Glasgow and how the local education authority thought that this had had an entirely good effect on schooling in the area. That is an important initiative. The example should be followed purposefully by other LEAs which do not have such a close communication with parents and schools.
That example we were given was from Glasgow, and that was a new initiative. In Wales there has always, I understand, been far closer communication between parents, schools and local authorities than in most other parts of Britain. That has had a good effect on the whole tone of the schools because parents, children and teachers together have been aiming in one direction.
We are anxious that parents should participate more closely in the conduct of schools. There are big changes taking place in society, and some schools have, as a result, run into difficulties with which local education authorities have not always been able to cope. We aim to bring the under-used resource of parents and their concern for their children to help with the running of the schools. We want to give parents greater choice, to invite them to exercise their responsibilities more fully, to get more involved and to play a greater part in the whole educational movement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) spoke with great eloquence and conviction of the Leicestershire scheme, of which he has had personal experience. The evidence from that area is that, where parents are taken into closer participation, the education system is much more acceptable to them. Those Leicestershire parents were prepared to defend their system tooth and nail when they thought that it might be taken from them. We heard a similar story from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt), who spoke eloquently of the experience of his area; and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) spoke about similar experiences with a vigour which electrified hon. Members on both sides of the House.
But no one can speak with more authority on this subject than can my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), who as a headmaster evoked the strong support of parents in the area round his school. That was why his school was so enormously successful. It became the school of first choice for parents in the immediate vicinity and far beyond.
We must listen to the evidence of the good that comes from bringing in parents to back up the local education authority and the efforts in the schools. From the areas that have been described tonight there has emerged evidence of a good case. I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State attach importance to participation by parents, but organisationally they have taken no steps to confirm that belief. They have not shown it in the Bill or in the debates.
12.45 a.m.
What we are seeking to do in the first of these new clauses is to transfer more

power to parents. There would be a triangle of the head teacher, the child and the parents, trying to work out what is the best school for the child. Surely it is a healthy change of emphasis to give more power to the parents and less power to the local authority. [AN HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman means the rich parents."] I do not mean the rich parents. I am talking entirely of the maintained sector and the choice within it. It was unworthy of the interrupter to suggest that I was not dealing with that problem. Our concern in these new clauses is to aim at the maximum range of choice within the maintained sector.
If the exercise of parental choice results in heavy pressure on one school, with an open withdrawal of confidence from some others, surely that should be a storm warning to the local authority that it must do something about such schools, and quickly. The school should not go on in weakness for 15 years before remedial action is taken.
Both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State believe that in the end our responsibility is to the child, and to allow a school to be below standard for years is doing no service to the children or the neighbourhood and is bringing the maintained sector into disrepute. The spur to remedial action is the exercise of parental choice, which shows which schools are losing the confidence of the parents of the area. That would be one of the great advantages of these new clauses.
New Clause 6 deals with the transfer of pupils between schools. There are many legitimate reasons for which parents wish their children to be transferred from one school to another. Most important of all is the courses that a child seeks and to which his abilities are best attuned. They may not exist in one school at the right level. Therefore, there should be a choice, by consultation between parents, headmasters and the local authority, for making a change at any stage where it appears that the child is not being allowed to use his full capacity because the courses he wants to follow, quite legitimately because of his capabilities, are not there at the right level.
It is a wrong use of educational resources not to allow children to be transferred to schools where the courses from which they can best benefit are provided.
This applies whether the course concerned is in the maintained sector or outside it. Educational resources are not so richly spread across the country that we can afford to under-use them.
There are other very special needs as well—brothers and sisters being allowed to attend the same school, the rationalisation of family transport, the change in residence of the parents, and the travelling pattern of the husband, who can perhaps take the children to school each morning and, with any luck, bring them back again in the evening.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman has dealt at great length with the question of transfer, and he also mentioned that we were talking not about well-to-do people but about all children. He is now talking about the cost of transport for schoolchildren and about transporting them in motor cars. I should tell him that working-class families in my constituency certainly cannot afford that sort of thing. Is the hon. Member going to offer, from public funds, the choice for children to travel to school, or is it going to rest with the parents in each case?

Sir G. Sinclair: If there is a satisfactory school in the neighbourhood but the parents nevertheless prefer another school, they must vote with their own pockets as well. There is a great deal that can be done to share transport. It is being done all over the country as the Government can no longer sustain social services at the standard of recent years and local authorities are having to cut the money spent on school transport. This is being cut down all over the country, and in my county, as elsewhere, parents are increasingly having to join together in making the best of their joint resources to get their children to school and back. There is an element of self-reliance here when other resources are being withdrawn.
There are other needs too. There are the special needs of children, who, through their own fault or through no fault of their own, have become at loggerheads with the school they are attending. I do not apportion blame, but obviously it is a misery for the child to remain there, and it sometimes becomes unacceptable also for his companions. It is merciful in these circumstances to get a

transfer between schools and to give the child the opportunity of a fresh start.
Then there is the case of transfer across boundaries, for which we provide in New Clause 27. This is really to deal with circumstances in which local authorities refuse, because of their local education authority boundaries, to take rational decisions about allowing children to go to the nearest school. This is particularly important where local authorities indulge in strict zoning procedures, which I hope the Minister will discourage wherever he finds them. Not only do they stop transfers across boundaries even when these are sensible, but they stop transfers between zones within their own local education authority. I hope that the Minister will encourage the proper use of across-boundary transfers where this is a reasonable choice for the parents to make.
I know of some of the difficulties from my constituency where the local authorities have been somewhat inflexible in exercising their right to give children the right of transfer across boundaries. I ask the Secretary of State to take particular note of this point. At a time of rapid change, when parents are extremely worried about changes in education, the authorities should make arrangements for transfers across boundaries a good deal more flexibly.
The new clause dealing with the choice of schools is important. If children over the age of 15 want to transfer, not necessarily to a school but to an educational course outside a school, the parents would have that choice under our proposals. The clause justifies a change in courses when there are special courses as allowed by the Bill in dancing and music. This is particularly relevant to my constituency, which has on its borders the Yehudi Menuhin school of music. We also want to add schools with advanced courses in mathematics and languages and other special disciplines which cannot be spread evenly across the whole range of secondary education.
In conclusion, there are good educational reasons for our proposals. The basic one is an attempt to get parents more deeply involved in the schooling of their children and into a closer relationship with the schools, giving all their parental authority to backing the schools'


efforts. That is what the new clauses mean, and I hope that the Minister of State will take cognisance of the widespread demand by parents that they should be brought more closely into educational choice and the management of schools.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly to the debate.
The problem that we face with these new clauses was encapsulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell). I do not dissent in any way from the objectives stated by the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair). We are at one in wishing to see parental involvement in schools. But the clauses would put the power not in the hands of parents but in the hands of the head teachers of schools that were over-subscribed.

In Committee the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) reminded us of the danger of assessment by head teachers. I remember his saying that that system could be more dangerous than the 11-plus examination.

1.0 a.m.

The hon. Gentleman was right. The principle of selection in the case of oversubscribed schools is built into New Clause 4, and that is why I must ask the House to reject it. I assure the House that Section 76 of the 1944 Act remains unchallenged by the Bill, but we cannot accept the new clause.

Mr. Walter Harrison: (Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 253.

Division No. 170
AYES
1.01 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Allaun, Frank
Corbett, Robin
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Anderson, Donald
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Freeson, Reginald


Archer, Peter
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Freud, Clement


Armstrong, Ernest
Crawshaw, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Ashton, Joe
Cronin, John
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
George, Bruce


Atkinson, Norman
Cryer, Bob
Gilbert, Dr John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Ginsburg, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Golding, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dalyell, Tam
Gould, Bryan


Bates, Alf
Davidson, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry


Bean, R. E.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Grocott, Bruce


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Deakins, Eric
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hardy, Peter


Bishop, E. S.
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Harper, Joseph


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Boardman, H
Dempsey, James
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Doig, Peter
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dormand, J. D.
Hatton, Frank


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hayman, Mrs Helena


Bradley, Tom
Duffy, A. E. P.
Heffer, Eric S.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunn, James A.
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dunnett, Jack
Horam, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Howell Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Eadie, Alex
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Buchan, Norman
Edge, Geoff
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Buchanan, Richard
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Huckfield, Les


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Campbell, Ian
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Canavan, Dennis
English, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cant, R. B.
Ennals, David
Hughes, Roy (Nwport)


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Hunter, Adam


Carter, Ray
Evans John (Newton)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Cartwright, John
Faulds, Andrew
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Janner, Greville


Clemitson, Ivor
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Flannery, Martin
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
John, Brynmor


Concannon, J. D.
Ford, Ben
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Conlan, Bernard
Forrester, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)




Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Judd, Frank
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Snape, Peter


Kaufman, Gerald
Newens, Stanley
Spearing, Nigel


Kelley, Richard
Noble, Mike
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Kerr, Russell
Oakes, Gordon
Stoddart, David


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ogden, Eric
Stott, Roger


Kinnock, Neil
O'Halloran, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Lambie, David
Orbach, Maurice
Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.


Lamborn, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lamond, James
Ovenden, John
Swain, Thomas


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Owen, Dr David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Leadbitter, Ted
Padley, Walter
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Park, George
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Parker, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parry, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lipton, Marcus
Pavitt, Laurie
Tierney, Sydney


Litterick, Tom
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Tinn, James


Lomas, Kenneth
Pendry, Tom
Tomlinson, John


Loyden, Eddie
Penhaligon, David
Torney, Tom


Luard, Evan
Perry, Ernest
Tuck, Raphael


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Urwin, T. W.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Prescott, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McCartney, Hugh
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


McElhone, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Radice, Giles
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Ward, Michael


Mackenzie, Gregor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wotkins, David


Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Watkinson, John


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Weetch, Ken


McNamara, Kevin
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wellbeloved, James


Madden, Max
Roderick, Caerwyn
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Magee, Bryan
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
White, James (Pollok)


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mahon, Simon
Rooker, J. W.
Whitlock, William


Mallalieu. J. P. W.
Roper, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Marks, Kenneth
Rose, Paul B.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Marquand, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Sir Thomas


Meacher, Michael
Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mendelson, John
Selby, Harry
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Mikardo, Ian
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Millan, Bruce
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Woodall, Alec


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Woof, Robert


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Molloy, William
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Moonman, Eric
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silverman, Julius
Mr. A. W. Stallard and Mr. Ted Graham


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Skinner, Dennis



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Small, William



Moyle, Roland
Smith, Cyril (Rochdala)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Burden, F. A.
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Aitken, Jonathan
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Alison, Michael
Carlisle, Mark
Elliott, Sir William


Arnold, Tom
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Emery, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Channon, Paul
Eyre, Reginald


Awdry, Daniel
Churchill, W. S.
Fairgrieve, Russell


Banks, Robert
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Farr, John


Bell, Ronald
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fell, Anthony


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Clegg, Walter
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Biffen, John
Cockcroft, John
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Blaker, Peter
Cope, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Body, Richard
Cormack, Patrick
Forman, Nigel


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Corrie, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Bottomley, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Fox, Marcus


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Critchley, Julian
Fry, Peter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Crouch, David
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Crowder, F. P.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Brittan, Leon
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Drayson, Burnaby
Goodhart, Philip


Buck, Antony
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Goodhew, Victor


Budgen, Nick
Durant, Tony
Goodlad, Alastair


Bulmer, Esmond
Dykes, Hugh
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)







Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sainsbury, Tim


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gray, Hamish
Marten, Neil
Scott, Nicholas


Griffiths, Eldon
Mates, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Grist, Ian
Mather, Carol
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Grylls, Michael
Maude, Angus
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hall, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shepherd, Colin


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mayhew, Patrick
Shersby, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Silvester, Fred


Hannam, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Sims, Roger


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mills, Peter
Sinclair, Sir George


Hastings, Stephen
Miscampbell, Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Havers, Sir Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger
Speed, Keith


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Monro, Hector
Spence, John


Heseltine, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Sproat, Iain


Holland, Philip
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stainton, Keith


Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stanley, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Mudd, David
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neave, Airey
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hunt, John
Nelson, Anthony
Stokes, John


Hurd, Douglas
Neubert, Michael
Stradling, Thomas J.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Newton, Tony
Tapsell, Peter


James, David
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Nott, John
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Cranley
Tebbit, Norman


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Temple-Morris, Peter


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Osborn, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Jopling, Michael
Page, John (Harrow West)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Paisley, Rev Ian
Trotter, Neville


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Parkinson, Cecil
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kershaw, Anthony
Pattie, Geoffrey
van Straubenzee, w. R.


Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Ian
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wakeham, John


Kirk, Sir Peter
Prior, Rt Hon James
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kitson, Sir Timorthy
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Raison, Timothy
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Knox, David
Rathbone Tim
Wall, Patrick


Lane, David
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Walters, Dennis


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Warren, Kenneth


Lawrence, Ivan
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard


Lawson, Nigel
Ronton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wells, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wiggin, Jerry


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridsdale, Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


Lloyd, Ian
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Loveridge, John
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Luce, Richard
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Younger, Hon George


McCrindle, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Macfarlane, Neil
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)



MacGregor, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. W. Benyon and Mr. Anthony Berry.


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)



McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Royle, Sir Anthony

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 295.

Division No. 171.]
AYES
[1.14 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carlisle, Mark


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Peter
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Alison, Michael
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Channon, Paul


Arnold, Tom
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Churchill, W. S.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Awdry, Daniel
Brittan, Leon
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Banks, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bell, Ronald
Brotherton, Michael
Clegg, Walter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cockcroft, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Benyon, W.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Cope, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Buck, Antony
Cormack, Patrick


Biffen, John
Budgen, Nick
Corrie, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Bulmer, Esmond
Costain, A. P.


Blaker, Peter
Burden, F. A.
Critchley, Julian


Body, Richard
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Crouch, David




Crowder, F. P.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Drayson, Burnaby
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Dunlop, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Durant, Tony
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dykes, Hugh
Lane, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Elliott, Sir William
Lawson, Nigel
Royle, Sir Anthony


Emery, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Tim


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lloyd, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Farr, John
Loveridge, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fell, Anthony
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McCusker, H.
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Macfarlane. Neil
Shepherd, Colin


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacGregor, John
Shersby, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Silvester, Fred


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sims, Roger


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fox, Marcus
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fry, Peter
Marten, Neil
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mates, Michael
Speed, Keith


Gardiner, George (Reigale)
Mather, Carol
Spence, John


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Maude, Angus
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mawby, Ray
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sproat, Iain


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mayhew, Patrick
Stainton, Keith


Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodhew, Victor
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stanley, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Peter
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stokes, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moate, Roger
Stradling, Thomas J.


Gray, Hamish
Molyneaux, James
Tapsell, Peter


Griffiths, Eldon
Monro, Hector
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Grylls, Michael
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Tebbit, Norman


Hall, Sir John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hannam, John
Mudd, David
Trotter, Neville


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Neave, Airey
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hastings, Stephen
Nelson, Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Havers, Sir Michael
Neubert, Michael
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony
Viggers, Peter


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Normanton, Tom
Wakeham, John


Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Holland, Philip
Osborn, John
Wall, Patrick


Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow West)
Walters, Dennis


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Warren, Kenneth


Howell, David (Guildford)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parkinson, Cecil
Wells, John


Hunt, John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hurd, Douglas
Percival, Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas


James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt Hon James
Younger, Hon George


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Michael Roberts.


Jopling, Michael
Rathbone, Tim



Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter



Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Allaun, Frank
Bates, Alf
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Anderson, Donald
Bean, R, E.
Boyden, Jamas (Bish Auck)


Archer, Peter
Beith, A. J.
Bradley, Tom


Armstrong, Ernest
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Atkinson, Norman
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Buchan, Norman


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Boardman, H.
Buchanan, Richard







Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Campbell, Ian
Hooley, Frank
Ovenden, John


Canavan, Dennis
Horam, John
Owen, Dr David


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Padley, Walter


Carmichael, Neil
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Palmer, Arthur


Carter, Ray
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Park, George


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Huckfield, Les
Parker, John


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Parry, Robert


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pavitt, Laurie


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Roy (Nwport)
Pendry, Tom


Cohen, Stanley
Hunter, Adam
Penhaligon, David


Coleman, Donald
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Perry, Ernest


Colqsuhoun, Ms Maureen
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Prescott, John


Conlan, Bernard
Janner, Greville
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, William (Rugby)


Corbett, Robin
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Radice, Giles


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechtord)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crawshaw, Richard
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cronin, John
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Rooker, J. W.


Davidson, Arthur
Kerr, Russell
Roper, John


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Kinnock, Neil
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Deakins, Eric
Lamborn, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamond, James
Sandelson, Neville


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sedgemore, Brian


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Selby, Harry


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Doig, Peter
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dunn, James A.
Litterick, Tom
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dunnett, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie
Silverman, Julius


Eadie, Alex
Luard, Evan
Skinner, Dennis


Edge, Geoff
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Small, William


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McElhone, Frank
Snape, Peter


English, Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Spearing, Nigel


Ennals, David
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stoddart, David


Evans John (Newton)
Maclennan, Robert
Stott, Roger


Ewing, Harry (Stirlina)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Strang, Gavin


Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, Kevin
Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.


Fernynough, Rt Hon E.
Madden, Max
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Magee, Bryan
Swain, Thomas


Flannery, Martin
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Simon
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Ford, Ben
Marquand, David
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tierney, Sydney


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tinn, James


Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Tomlinson, John


Freud, Clement
Mendelson, John
Torney, Tom


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mikardo, Ian
Tuck, Raphael


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Millan, Bruce
Urwin, T. W.


George, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Golding, John
Molloy, William
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Gould, Bryan
Moonman, Eric
Ward, Michael


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkinson, John


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Weetch, Ken


Grocott, Bruce
Moyle, Roland
Wellbeloved, James


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hardy, Peter
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
White, James (Pollok)


Harper, Joseph
Newens, Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Noble, Mike
Whitlock, William


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Oakes, Gordon
Wigley, Dafydd


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ogden, Eric
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hatton, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)







Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Wise, Mrs Audrey



Williams, Sir Thomas
Woodall, Alec
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Woof, Robert
Mr. A. W. Stallard and Mr. Ted Graham.


Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian



Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Young, David (Bolton E)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Mulley: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Mulley: Of course, if that does not meet with the agreement of the Opposition, I shall be happy to ask leave to withdraw the motion. This is an important Bill. I confess that I am disappointed at the slow progress that the House has made, but I think that it will be for general convenience if we adjourn now. As the Government are determined to get the Bill on to the statute book at the earliest possible date, we shall want to return to further consideration as soon as we can conveniently do so.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The decision whether to adjourn the debate is for the House, but the responsibility for proposing the adjournment is the Government's. The Opposition think that is a sensible decision for the Government to take, in view of the important business later today, the importance of this Bill, and the fact that some very important new clauses still have to be discussed.
I want to make it quite plain to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there has been no communication between any usual or unusual channels. No deal has been made by anyone, and the Opposition reserve their full rights on this matter. We look forward to resuming the battle when the Government have recovered.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

TELEVISION MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

1.31 a.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: It is just after 1.30 a.m., and I am taken somewhat by surprise, since I had anticipated not having to rise until about

11.30 this morning. However, despite the short notice, I propose to address the House on the very serious threat that now exists to the prospects of the television manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. I want to talk about it particularly in relation to the threat of Japanese competition.
The television manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom is not in a healthy state. The Japanese have recently accomplished a very substantial feat. They forced the closure of the Skelmersdale factory of Thorn Consumer Electronics at a cost of 1,400 jobs, £20 million a year on the balance of payments, and the serious weakening of the television manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom. They did it by maintaining prices for Japanese tubes without any increase at all throughout 1974 and 1975. In fact, between October 1974 and October 1975 the price of tubes from Japan actually fell.
What happened was that the moment they knocked out one-half of all the tube production in the United Kingdom, their prices rose steadily. In March 1976 the Japanese increased their prices very substantially, and we in Britain will have to pay the piper for that.
I mention those facts because the same thing is happening in relation to television sets. Having got the tubes under their belt, the Japanese are now moving in to knock out the British television manufacturing industry, using similar methods.
The value of the yen has risen substantially in the last two years in relation to sterling. Consequently, it will take more and more pounds to buy a Japanese tube or a Japanese television set. But until the Japanese knocked out the Skelmersdale factory, the price of tubes did not rise. Up to the moment, no price rises have occurred in Japanese television sets, although they have now found it necessary to increase the price of tubes, because they are no longer worried about local competition. Why do they not increase the price of television sets?
Japan has a 10 per cent. inflation rate, which should raise Japanese manufacturing costs. That should be another reason


why Japanese television sets should cost more in the United Kingdom. However, by a remarkable feat, they do not cost more here, although the prices in Japan have been raised. The Japanese have increased the price of television sets in Japan but not in the United Kingdom and Western Europe. That is because they are pursuing the same policy with regard to television sets as they have pursued in relation to television tubes. They will wait until Thorn Consumer Electronics, which is making over half of our monochrome sets and one-third of our colour sets, is forced to close down production, or a substantial part of its production.
The purpose of this debate is to ask the Government what they propose to do about this matter. The industry has been on to the Government. The Minister of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)—has said that the Government intend to see that the United Kingdom television manufacturing industry thrives, but so far nothing has happened. The Japanese had an arrangement, industry to industry, with United Kingdom manufacturers, that when business was bad in the United Kingdom, and when consumer demand was low, they would export to this country fewer sets, in order that our industry could remain viable, and that they would import more sets only when our consumer demand was booming. They have refused to renew that agreement since the end of 1975, because they have decided to move in for the kill on our television set manufacturing industry.
The Government now have the full responsibility for negotiating with the Japanese on behalf of the industry. There was a move to prove that the Japanese have been guilty of dumping tubes, but the Japanese were very quick with their footwork and, at the same time, they took advantage of the curious phrasing of the remit in connection with dumping. The result was that nothing was established, although it is quite clear that the tubes were sold at a lower price than that at which they should have been sold. In other words, the Japanese are prepared to sell goods at an uneconomic price for a time in order to achieve their long-range economic objectives. It is quite clear, therefore, that what we are seeing here are unethical business practices, with the long-range objective of

destroying sectors of Western European industry.
I want to make it very clear that the television manufacturers in Britain are not objecting to fair competition. The European competition they regard as fair. If costs rise in Europe, the price of European television sets rises too, because their manufacture costs more, and therefore more has to be paid by Britain in buying a European article, just as British manufacturers, when their costs rise with inflation, have to increase their prices. However, the Japanese, until they have knocked out an industry, keep their prices steady.
If trading is fair, it is impossible to understand how it is that the Japanese have had to raise the price of tubes at this late date, but after a year or two still do not have to raise the price of colour television sets.
Basically, therefore, the ball is in the British Government's court. They must honour their pledge to see that we have a thriving industry. If the Japanese knock out this section of industry, thousands of jobs will be lost. We have lost 1,400 at Skelmersdale. In Bradford we have Thorn Consumer Electronics, which was, and perhaps still is, the largest colour television factory in Europe. The number of workers there has dropped dramatically, unfortunately, but there are still between 2,000 and 3,000 people employed there. If the Government do not act, in the long term—perhaps even in the medium term—we shall see a loss of employment in Bradford.
I do not want to be alarmist, but in a business sense we are dealing with ruthless people, when we are dealing with the Japanese. I should also include mention of areas into which the Japanese have expanded for the purpose of manufacture, because now an enormous number of television sets are coming from Singapore and Taiwan. The Japanese have a finger in those pies. They are increasing their export to Britain of portable monochrome television sets at a fantastic rate. It is likely that they will take 50 per cent. of the market this year.
Last year it was suggested to the Japanese that they restrict their exports of sets to this country to 175,000. They exported 209,000 sets. At the moment, we are importing Japanese sets, taking the figures for February and March, at an


annual rate of about 300,000. When one adds the other Eastern countries we can expect imports of television sets into Britain to number about 500,000 this year. That will not do, unless competition is fair. Faced with subtle pricing policies which are not based on honest commercial criteria the British industry will go to the wall. If it goes to the wall there will be a loss of jobs, which I shall find unacceptable. This is a Labour Government and I am a Labour MP, but if the factory in Bradford closes the Government will have a lot of trouble on their hands from Labour MPs.
Tonight we are giving advance warning. A lot more will be heard about the colour television industry, because it is the largest employer of labour in Bradford and we are not prepared to see it close for want of action. We simply cannot have that, and the balance of payments situation in this country cannot stand it. We have already been seriously weakened by the loss of the television tube industry-50 per cent, of that has gone—and we will not allow the colour television and monochrome television industries to go without a fight. Workers in Gosport now have their jobs threatened by the avalanche of Japanese sets coming into this country.
These are some of the matters that I would like the Minister to consider tonight. What we want is a stiffening of British attitudes in negotiations with the Japanese. If they will not conform to proper and reasonable standards by limiting their exports to us or ensuring that their pricing policies relate to the cost of manufacture of the set, the British Government must take serious action. That is the message that I bring to the Minister tonight and I hope he will give some answers to it.

1.43 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for raising this subject. I am fully appreciative of the importance attached to it in his part of the country. I should emphasise—and my hon. and learned Friend has himself intimated—that public interest and public involvement in this industry is not confined to any one part of the country. There are 20,000 employees and, in addition, there are substantial

numbers in supporting component industries.
As has been suggested by my hon. and learned Friend, the most important aspect of the industry is the colour TV set. Last year, which was a bad year for the industry, over 1,500,000 United Kingdom colour television sets were built, with an ex-works value of £260 million. In addition, 500,000 monochrome sets were built, with a value of £25 million. However, the industry has been going through a difficult period.
One must see this problem in a slightly longer-term perspective and not just in relation to the events of the last 12 months. One must take into account the strains imposed on the industry by the irresponsible activities of the Conservative Chancellor, Mr. Barber, when he unexpectedly removed all credit controls in 1971, unleashing a demand that the domestic industry was not capable of meeting. Consumer demand rose from 400,000 in 1970 to 2·6 million in 1973. Inevitably, imports were drawn in, the industry expanded, and committed capital to meet this extra demand, and domestic output rose from 500,000 colour sets in 1970 to 2 million in 1973. That was a remarkable expansion.
But then, as irresponsibly as the credit controls were removed in 1971, they were stringently reapplied in December 1973. Firms had made their financial commitments and deployed their resources, and consumer demand fell sharply as a result of the Conservative Chancellor's decision. The figure for United Kingdom production slipped to just under 2 million.
Then the recession deepened, in part as an inevitable reflection of the worldwide situation. One must accept that at that stage the VAT rate of 25 per cent. was not exactly helpful to the industry's prospects. Output fell eventually to 1·6 million. By the end of last year the United Kingdom colour set manufacturers were working to as little as 50 per cent. of capacity.
Naturally the Government treat this situation as serious and want to do what they can to help. In December, the credit controls were eased and in April the VAT rate was halved to 12½ per cent. We believe that the benefits of these decisions will be felt more fully as the upturn is reflected in consumer demand


generally and that we have therefore eased the trading circumstances for the television manufacturers.
Nevertheless, it would be ridiculous to be complacent or to suggest that that in any way resolves the immediate problem, or that we shall return to something like the boom year of 1973. I see no prospect of that. The demand for colour sets over 1976 as a whole may still show little change over the figures for 1975.
Despite the substantial and commendable increase in exports of colour television sets—in other words, finding alternative markets—from 10,000 in 1971 to 200,000 last year, I regret to say that the under-loading in the set and component factories has continued and that individual firms will need to consider their production plans carefully in the light of their assessment of the market trends.
The critical point raised by my hon. and learned Friend—I fully understand his concern—was the problem of import competition, particularly from Japan. In colour television sets, which are the most important part of the industry, accounting for 90 per cent. of output and the bulk of employment, import penetration of the United Kingdom market has actually fallen, from 25 per cent. in 1973 to 20 per cent. in 1974, then to 16·5 per cent. in 1975, and the first four months of this year shows an annual rate of only 13 per cent. That rate is half that which applied in 1973.
But the largest single source of colour television imports is Japan, and its share of our market has remained constant at about 10 per cent. throughout this period. At the end of 1975, the Japanese Government discontinued its statutory controls on the export of colour sets to the United Kingdom, but there has been no subsequent increase in the Japanese share of our market. It still stands at 10 per cent. for the first four months of this year, but that in no way leads us to be complacent. We are aware of the apprehensions of the industry. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the need for continuity of restraint is well understood by the Japanese Government and ourselves.
My hon. and learned Friend will recollect that the Department of Trade has

set up a surveillance licensing system to monitor developments and to give early warning. We hope that that system will enable us to respond rapidly to any marked and important change.

Mr. Edward Lyons: My hon. Friend has not yet dealt with monochrome television sets. There has been a tremendous jump this year in monochrome set imports, and it looks as if Japan and other Far Eastern countries will take not 10 per cent., but over half of the production of monochrome sets.

Mr. Williams: I am trying to isolate the problems, so that we see them in perspective. If my hon. and learned Friend will excuse me from replying immediately, I shall come to those points.
I know that the United Kingdom industry is concerned that the average landed price of Japanese colour sets has so far failed to show the increase that might have been expected as a result of rising raw material costs and fluctuating exchange rates. The interesting feature is that, despite this, the Japanese have not expanded their market share of colour television sets in this country, as might have been expected were their objectives those described by my hon. and learned Friend. The ability of the Japanese—and this applies across the board—to maintain or reduce their prices does not necessarily indicate unfair trading practices. We should have to take into account our international trading colleagues were we to take the course of action advocated by my hon. and learned Friend. The ability to maintain or reduce prices might reflect higher productivity, or greater willingness to absorb costs or accept reduced margins.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Are not the only reasons why our colour television industry has not been smashed up the PAL licensing system—which denies the Japanese the right to send to Britain colour sets with screens bigger than 20in.—and the agreement that has just expired and will not be renewed, for the voluntary limitation of exports to Britain of colour television sets? Without those two safeguards, our colour television industry would already be in ruins.

Mr. Williams: My hon. and learned Friend must bear in mind that the end of the agreement came at the time of the decision on credit controls, and we


might have expected repercussions in terms of the market share. We have subsequently had the Chancellor's Budget decisions. If the surveillance system showed a marked change in the circumstances, we should want to look at that more closely.
We must not overlook the onus that rests on the industry to establish its case. If there is reason to think that dumping is occurring—the general criterion is that the price charged in the United Kingdom is lower than the price charged in the exporting country's domestic market—the Department of Trade is always ready to consider anti-dumping action of the type available to us, but before taking such action the Department requires the application for action to show evidence of domestic prices in the exporting country and evidence of the extent to which the United Kingdom industry is being injured or threatened.
My hon. and learned Friend said that he would not stand by and see jobs lost because of lack of action, and it is very much to his credit. That is the view of the Government, as well. But if the United Kingdom television industry wishes to press a case for anti-dumping action, it should proceed accordingly and follow the guidance that I have given on the action to be taken, although, if it is to do that it would be sensible for it first to discuss the position with my officials.
I have explained the position about colour television sets. The situation is rather different in respect of table monochrome sets. There, the market has fallen, and imports present no problem. My hon. and learned Friend is mainly concerned about portable sets. Imports from Japan, Singapore and Taiwan are well entrenched—slightly more so than he suggested. The market for portable models has risen markedly in this country, from 300,000 in 1972 to over 700,000 last year. Here, we come across a somewhat different pattern of trends in terms of market penetration. Having fallen from 71 per cent. of the market in 1972 to 62 per cent. in 1973 and 43 per cent. in 1974, the share of the market held by imports rose again in 1975 to 57 per cent., and has reached 67 per cent. in the first four months of this year. In numbers, imports of portable monochrome sets almost doubled in the last

four months, compared with the same period last year.
Therefore, I must repeat what I have said, We fully understand the concern of the industry about imports into the radio and hi-fi markets and my hon. Friends' concern about the Thorn factory in Skelmersdale. We understand that they want action against imports from the Far East. But I reiterate that the Government have made it clear that they are willing to consider selective import controls if it can be shown that the survival of a British industry is threatened.
But the industry must bring forward relevant evidence and information. Our international obligations require that such controls could in any case only be temporary. A number of factors have to be taken into account, including the risk of retaliation in the sale of our own products and the long-term prospects of the industry concerned.
I urge my hon. and learned Friend, and the industry, if they feel that the evidence is as overwhelming as he has suggested and that it would be practicable to bring forward the data to demonstrate that there has been dumping, to make that information available to the Department at the earliest possible moment. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be very ready to investigate such evidence urgently.

Mr. Edward Lyons: What we want is a tough negotiating position by the Government to persuade the Japanese to bring in the sort of arrangements, voluntarily to restrict their exports to this country, which we had until last December. We do not need to prove dumping only.

Mr. Williams: I assure my hon. and learned Friend that the Government will be making the necessary representations to the Japanese Government in the light of the figures that have become available, but in terms of the drastic solution that he seeks—namely, unilaterally to curb imports—it would be necessary for an appropriate case to be made by the industry. If he wishes to discuss this with me further in the Department, I shall be happy to have such discussion.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.